NA25 - www-user

A Textual Commentary 

on the 

Greek Gospels 

Vol. 1 

Matthew 

BY 

WIELAND WILLKER 

Bremen, online published 

9 th edition 2012 

© all rights reserved

Results from the variant evaluation: 

Textual variants 

in the 

Gospel of Matthew 

The best manuscripts of Mt: 

1. Primary (=best) witnesses: 01, B, L 18-28 , Z, 085, sa 

2. Secondary (= good) witnesses: Q 14-28 , 0281, 33 21-28 , 372 1-10 , 892, vg, Co 

3. Tertiary: D Byz , f1, 33, 700 15-28 , it, Sy-S, Sy-C 

[372, 2737, (2786) data incomplete] 

"Caesarean": Q, f13, weak: (700, 1424) 

"Western": D, it, Sy-S, Sy-C 

f1-type: 

from 22:15 

f1, 22, 652 

Byzantine: A, C, L 1-17 , W, D, Q 1-13 , 28, 157, 565, 579, 700 1-14 , 1071, 1241, 

1424, Sy P,H 

Manuscripts with Lacuna: (noted also in the commentary) 

Lacunae of C: 

1:1-2 

5:15-7:5 

17:26-18:28 

22:21-23:17 

24:10-45 

25:30-26:22 

Lacunae of D: 

1:1-20 6:20-9:2 27:2-12 

Lacunae of L: 

4:22-5:14 

28:17-end 

27:11-46 

28:15-end 

Z/035 contents: 

N.B.! The lacunae of Z are not mentioned explicitly in this commentary. 

1:17-2:6 

12:43-13:11 19:21-28 

23:13-23 

2:13-20 

13:57-14:19 20:7-21:8 

24:15-25 

4:4-13 

15:13-23 

21:23-30 

25:1-11 

5:45-6:15 

17:9-17 

21:37-45 

26:21-29 

7:16-8:6 

17:26-18:6 

22:16-25 

26:62-71 

10:40-11:18 19:4-12 

22:37-23:3

Lacunae of Q: 

1:1-8 

Lacunae of 1424: 

1:23-2:16 

Lacunae of Sy-S: 

6:10-8:3 

Lacunae of Sy-C: 

8:23-10:31 

1:21-4:4 4:17-5:4 

16:15-17:11 20:25-21:20 28:8-end 

23:25-end 

Complete NA analysis: 

To check if the selection of our variants is a good one, we compared the analysis 

by checking all variants in NA. An extensive analysis of all variants in NA 27 gave: 

Best manuscripts are: 01, B, Z 

Secondary witnesses with good text are: C, D, f1, f13, 33, 892, Lat 

additionally Mt 1 - 14: W 

Mt 14 - 28: L, Q 

Mt 15 - 21: 579, 700 

Mt 8 - 14: 1424 

Ranking: 1. 01, B, Z 

2. D, L, Q, f1, 892, Lat 

3. C, W, f13, 33, 579, 700, 1424 

Clearly discernible Minority groups: 

1. D, Lat, (Sy) "Western" 

2. Q, f13 (700, f1, 1424) "Caesarean" 

This confirms the above results.

Family 1: 

The text of f1 is quite good in Matthew. Therefore it is good to have additional 

witnesses. 

Manuscript 652 is f1 in Mt from 22:15 on to the end. 

This has been discovered by Russell Champlin in 1964 (Family Pi in Matthew, 

Studies and Documents 24). 

Unfortunately 652 has not been catched by Text & Textwert. INTF has rightly 

been criticized for having used too few 'Teststellen' in Mt and Lk (only 7 after 

22:15). The result is that e.g. a manuscript like 652 slipped through and was 

classified as simply Byzantine. 

1582: This manuscript has been corrected by a later hand to the Byzantine text. 

I have decided to normally not record these corrections, but only in exceptional 

cases. 

Additionally the T&T analyses 

found the following minuscule manuscripts as especially noteworthy: 

"2" "Special" 

372 36% 10% 

2737 33% 9% 

2786 24% 7% 

22 32% 8% 

1192 22% 5% 

279 22% 7% 

2680 20% 10% 

517 15% 10% 

1675 16% 15% 

These are comparable to: 

33 38% 14% 

W 22% 7% 

579 16% 4% 

22 and 1192 form a group with 48/56 (86%) agreement. 22 is close to f1 in Mt. 

372 and 2737 form a group with 59/64 (92%) agreement. All of these are not 

outstanding, but only tertiary witnesses. 372 has some remarkable agreements 

with B.

Codex Schoyen: 

We note in the following also the newly discovered middle-Egyptian Codex 

Schoyen manuscript 2650, dated early 4 th CE. It will be listed as mae-2, against 

mae-1 for the Codex Scheide. mae-2 has text for chapters 6, 7, 14-17, 22 and 

28. 

The Codex has a curious mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings combined 

with many singular readings. 

The nearest neighbors are: 01, B, 892, f1, D, it, Sy-S 

Compare extra file on this manuscript. 

arab MS : Sinai Ar. Parchment 8+28. 8 th CE. It was among the new finds from 

1975. See NovT 50(2008)28-57. 

99 of the 327 variants (30%) are difficult to evaluate (Rating either "-" or "1?"). 

Mt has 1068 verses. This means that we have 

- one significant variant every 3 rd - 4 th verse, and 

- one difficult variant every 12 th verse. 

About 34 variants (10%) should be reconsidered in NA. 

Of the 327 variants noted only 42 (13%) have an umlaut in B (plus 8 insecure 

cases). There are 93 umlauts overall in Mt. This means that 51 of the 93 umlauts 

indicate rather minor (or unknown!) stuff.

TVU 1 

NA 27 Matthew 1:6 VIessai. de. evge,nnhsen to.n Daui.d to.n basile,aÅ 

Daui.d de. evge,nnhsen to.n Solomw/na evk th/j tou/ Ouvri,ou( 

BYZ Matthew 1:6 VIessai. de. evge,nnhsen to.n Daui.d to.n basile,a 

Daui.d de. o` basileu.j evge,nnhsen to.n Solomw/na evk th/j tou/ Ouvri,ou 

Byz C, K, P, L, W, D, 33, 157, 892, 1071, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, geo 

txt P1(3 rd CE), 01, B, G, f1, f13, 579, 700, pc, g 1 , k, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, 

Co, arm, Did 

omit previous to.n basile,a: 700, bo ms 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

LXX Ruth 4:22 kai. Wbhd evge,nnhsen to.n Iessai kai. Iessai evge,nnhsen 

to.n Dauid Þ 

Þ to.n basile,a A/02 

Probably a repetition from 1:6a. The addition breaks the symmetry of the 

verses. 

Daui.d o` basileu.j appears nowhere else in the NT, but 16 times in the LXX. 

Rating: 2? (NA probably original)

TVU 2 

Minority reading: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:9 VOzi,aj de. evge,nnhsen to.n VIwaqa,m( VIwaqa.m de. 

evge,nnhsen to.n VAca,z( VAca.z de. evge,nnhsen to.n ~Ezeki,an( 

VAca,j VAca,j 01, C, D Lk , aur, g 1 *, k, q, mae-1, bo ms , WH 

01* reads 1 st VAca,z 

txt B, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, NA 25 , Weiss 

D has a lacuna, but the (Matthean!) genealogy exists in Lk. 

Lacuna: D, 579 

B: no umlaut 

VAca.z appears 38 times in the LXX, but VAca,j never. 

Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)

TVU 3 


NA 27 Matthew 1:11 VIwsi,aj de. evge,nnhsen Þ to.n VIeconi,an kai. tou.j 

avdelfou.j auvtou/ evpi. th/j metoikesi,aj Babulw/nojÅ 

T&T #1 

Þ to.n Iwakeim Iwakeim de. evge,nnhsen 

(D), M, U, Q, S, f1, 33, 1342, al 168 , Sy-H, Sy-Pal, geo, (Ir Lat ), Epiph 

D (in Lk): tou Ieconiou tou Iwakeim tou Eliakeim tou Iwseia 

Ir (2 nd CE): "Joseph enim Joacim et Jechoniae filius ostenditur, quemadmodum 

et Matthaeus generationem ejus exponit." 

Epiphanius (4 th CE, Pan. 1.8.1-4): 

For St. Matthew enumerated the generations (of Christ‘s genealogy) in three divisions, and said 

that there were fourteen generations from Abraham till David, fourteen from David till the 

captivity, and fourteen from the captivity until Christ. The first two counts are plain to be seen 

with no lack of an item, for they include the times previous to Jechoniah. But we see that the 

third count no longer has the total of fourteen generations found in a succession of names, but 

the total of thirteen. This is because certain persons found a Jechoniah next to another 

Jechoniah, and thought that the item had been duplicated. It was not a duplication however, but 

a distinct item. The son had been named "Jechoniah the son of Jechoniah" for his father. By 

removing the one name as though for scholarship's sake, certain persons ignorantly made the 

promise (which is implied in the text) come short of its purpose with regard to the total of the 

fourteen names, and destroyed the regularity of the arrangement. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 kai. uiòi. Iwsia prwto,tokoj Iwanan o` deu,teroj 

Iwakim o` tri,toj Sedekia o` te,tartoj Saloum16 kai. uiòi. Iwakim 

Ieconiaj uiò.j auvtou/ Sedekiaj uiò.j auvtou/ 

And sons of Josiah: the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the 

fourth Shallum.16 And sons of Jehoiakim: 

Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. 

According to Mt 1:17 there are 14 generations in each of the three sections 

(Hebdomadic principle, gr. "seventh"). Counting though, there are only 13 in the 

last section. Several explanations have been put forward to overcome this 

problem. 

From early on it has been realized that Ieconiaj is not the son of Iwsia, but 

the grandson. Compare 1.Chr 3:15. The (relevant) son is Iwakim, which had been

omitted by Mt. So, many scribes added the name here. Then we have 42 

generations in total, but 15 generations in the second section and still only 13 in 

the last. It is possible to take Ieconiaj with the third section, which gives 14 

generations in each section. The only problem is that Mt counts up to the 

deportation to Babylon, which includes Ieconiaj into the second section. 

Either the name has been omitted to make the passage fit to 14 generations 

(unlikely), or it has been added to make it consistent with Chronicles, ignoring 

the number of generations (more probable). 

Zahn, in his commentary, suggests that VIeconi,an is a corruption for Iwakim 

and that VIeconi,an is included into the avdelfou.j auvtou/. This overcomes the 

discrepancy with the genealogy in 1. Chronicles. 

txt: 

1. Abraham 

2. Isaac 

3. Jacob 

4. Judah 

5. Perez 

6. Hezron 

7. Aram 

8. Aminadab 

9. Nahshon 

10. Salmon 

11. Boaz 

12. Obed 

13. Jesse 

14. David 

alternative: 

1. Abraham 

2. Isaac 

3. Jacob 

4. Judah 

5. Perez 

6. Hezron 

7. Aram 

8. Aminadab 

9. Nahshon 

10. Salmon 

11. Boaz 

12. Obed 

13. Jesse 

14. David 

1. Solomon 

2. Rehoboam 

3. Abijah 

4. Asaph 

5. Jehoshaphat 

6. Joram 

7. Uzziah 

8. Jotham 

9. Ahaz 

10. Hezekiah 

11. Manasseh 

12. Amos 

13. Josiah 

14. Jechoniah 

1. Solomon 

2. Rehoboam 

3. Abijah 

4. Asaph 

5. Jehoshaphat 

6. Joram 

7. Uzziah 

8. Jotham 

9. Ahaz 

10. Hezekiah 

11. Manasseh 

12. Amos 

13. Josiah 

14. Joakim 

1. Salathiel 

2. Zerubbabel 

3. Abiud 

4. Eliakim 

5. Azor 

6. Zadok 

7. Achim 

8. Eliud 

9. Eleazar 

10. Matthan 

11. Jacob 

12. Joseph/Mary 

13. Jesus 

1. Jechoniah 

2. Salathiel 

3. Zerubbabel 

4. Abiud 

5. Eliakim 

6. Azor 

7. Zadok 

8. Achim 

9. Eliud 

10. Eleazar 

11. Matthan 

12. Jacob 

13. Joseph/Mary 

14. Jesus

For the D reading compare: 

2. Chr 36:4 The king of Egypt made his brother Eliakim king over Judah and Jerusalem, and 

changed his name to Jehoiakim. 

So, Eliakim is just another name for Iwakim. Perhaps a marginal gloss that 

found its way into the text? 

D also adds three other names, compare discussion of D's genealogy in Lk. 

Porphyry (3rd CE): Jerome, Comm. in Daniel, (reg. 1:1): 

"Et ob hane causam in evang. sec. Matthaeum una videtur esse generatio (Matth. 

1, 11. 12), quia secunda tessaradekaj in Joacim desinit filio Josiae, et tertia 

incipit a Joacin filio Joacim. quod ignorans Porphyrius calumniam struit ecclesiae, 

suam ostendens imperitiam, dum evangelistae Matthaei arguere nititur 

falsitatem." [from Harnack "Porphyrius"] 

Rating: 2? (NA probably original) 

External Rating: 2 (NA clearly original) 

(after weighting the witnesses)

TVU 4 


NA 27 Matthew 1:16 VIakw.b de. evge,nnhsen to.n VIwsh.f 

to.n a;ndra Mari,aj( evx h-j evgennh,qh VIhsou/j o` lego,menoj cristo,j 

T&T #2 

to.n a;ndra Mari,aj( evx h-j evgennh,qh o` lego,menoj cristo,j 

f1, pc 12 

VIwsh.f de. evge,nnhsen to.n a;ndra Mari,aj( evx h-j evgennh,qh VIhsou/j o` 

lego,menoj cristo,j 

2670 

w-| mnhsteuqei,sa parqe,noj Mari,am evge,nnhsen VIhsou/n to.n 

lego,menon cristo,n 

D?, Q, f13, L547, it(a, b, c, d, g 1 , k, q) 

"to whom, being betrothed, a virgin Maria bore Jesus" 

to.n a;ndra Mari,aj( 

w-| mnhsteuqei,sa h=n Mari,am parqe,noj h] e;teken VIhsou/j Cristo,j 

Sy-C, arm 

"the husband of Mary, to whom was betrothed a virgin Maria, who bore Jesus" 

VIwsh.f( 

w-| mnhsteuqei,sa h=n Mari,am parqe,noj( evge,nnhsen VIhsou/n to.n 

lego,menon cristo,n 

Sy-S 

"Joseph, to whom was betrothed a virgin Maria, begat Jesus" 

VIwsh.f de.( w-| evmnhsteu,qh h=n parqe,noj Mari,am( evge,nnhsen VIhsou/n 

to.n lego,menon cristo,n 

von Soden (!) 

txt P1(3 rd CE), 01, B, C, K, P, L, W, (f1), 33, 579, 892, Maj, 

Lat (aur, f, ff 1 , vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, Co

Latin: 

cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit Iesum a, g 1 , k 

cui desponsata virgo Maria peperit Christum Iesum d 

cui desponsata Maria genuit Iesum q 

cui desponsata virgo Maria, Maria autem genuit Iesum c 

cui desponsata erat virgo Maria, virgo autem Maria genuit Iesum b 

virum Mariae de qua natus est Iesus (= txt) aur, f, ff 1 , vg 

Lacuna: D (d is extant!) 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:18 Tou/ de. VIhsou/ Cristou/ h` ge,nesij ou[twj h=nÅ 

mnhsteuqei,shj th/j mhtro.j auvtou/ Mari,aj tw/| VIwsh,f( pri.n h' 

sunelqei/n auvtou.j eu`re,qh evn gastri. e;cousa evk pneu,matoj a`gi,ouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 1:19 VIwsh.f de. o` avnh.r auvth/j( di,kaioj w'n kai. mh. qe,lwn 

auvth.n deigmati,sai( evboulh,qh la,qra| avpolu/sai auvth,nÅ 

Sy-C, Tatian: VIwsh.f de. avnh.r di,kaioj w'n 

This verse is famous for the "heretical" Sy-S reading which indicates Joseph as 

Jesus father! It is probably a translation/comprehension error, originating from 

the Q, f13 reading, which is awkward, because the subject of evge,nnhsen is not 

immediately clear. The Sy-S reading tries to continue the pattern from the 

previous verses. P. Williams notes that from a grammatical/syntactical point of 

view the Syriac translator had to provide a subject for evge,nnhsen VIhsou/n. 

Otherwise the sentence is ambiguous, leaving open even the possibility that 

Jakob was Jesus father. The scribe chose for whatever reason Joseph as 

subject and not Maria. 

Compare Streeter "Four Gospels", p. 87: 

"To me the reading of Sy-S looks as if it was translated from a Greek 

manuscript of the Q, f13 type in which by accident the name VIwsh.f has been 

written twice. … The reading of Sy-C will then be explained as one among many 

other attempts to correct this manuscript by a manuscript of the D type." 

Burkitt (Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe II, p. 262-4): 

"But the reading of S itself I have come to regard as nothing more than a 

paraphrase of the reading of the Ferrar group, the Syriac translator taking w-| 

to refer to evge,nnhsen as well as to mnhsteuqei,sa."

Compare also the discussion by Bruce Metzger in: 

"The text of Mt 1:16" in "Studies in the NT and Early Christian Literature", 

Festschrift Allen P. Wikgren, Leiden 1972, p. 16-24 

Metzger discusses several references from the apocryphal literature allegedly 

supporting the Sy-S reading, but he concludes: "there is no evidence that 

reading (3) [= Sy-S] ever existed in a Greek manuscript of the First Gospel. It 

arose either as a paraphrase of reading (2) [= Q, f13] – this was Burkitt's view – 

or as a purely mechanical imitation of the preceding pattern in the genealogy." 

Pete Williams also doubts that Sy-S represents an independent reading: 

"Thus S's reading, as reconstructed by NA27, differs formally in only three 

respects from that of Q f 13 . The word order difference is normal translation 

procedure, the addition of the subject would be obligatory, and the presence 

of h=n has long been doubted. Parsimony suggests that, though belief in a 

special reading of S has been widespread in modern scholarship, it should be 

abandoned unless new evidence is produced. (Again, it should be stressed 

that NA27 is at the better end of the methodological spectrum in handling 

such a variant. Von Soden, on the other hand, introduced an imaginary Greek 

reconstruction based on S into his main text.)" 

P. Williams "Early Syriac Translation Technique and the textual criticism of the Greek 

Gospels", Gorgias Press, 2004, p. 240-44. 

So, to conclude, one can probably add Sy-S as a witness to the Q, f13 reading. 

The origin of the [Q, f13, Old Latin] reading was possibly motivated by the 

problematic phrase to.n a;ndra Mari,aj. It appears possible that the reading 

was originally a Latin-only reading. The text of Q, f13 then is a back-translation 

from the Old Latin. (But it is of course also possible that the reading already 

existed in the Vorlage of the Old Latin.) We should note that the Greek part of 

D is not extant, but the Latin part is, which reads the Q et al. reading. It is 

therefore quite certain that D read this, too! It is a characteristic "Western" 

variant. 

Note a similar change in 1:19 by Sy-C! 

The Sy-C reading appears to be a conflation of the Old Latin reading and the txt 

reading. Zahn notes that this reading also removes the strange o` lego,menoj (so 

also k and d). 

The Diatessaron lacked the genealogies, as far as we know, but it would be 

interesting to know what Aphraates (Homilies) reads here exactly, because he 

has the same strange genealogy as the one given in D. Compare Lk.

Stemma: 

txt 

OLat txt 

Sy-S Q, f13 Sy-C, arm 

It must be noted that on internal arguments alone, the Sy-S reading is certainly 

dogmatically the harder one. Claiming Joseph to be Jesus father is 

objectionable. Then the other readings would be attempts to overcome this 

difficulty. 

In general it should be noted that evge,nnhsen throughout the genealogy 

denotes legal, not physical descent. 

The reading of 2670 is funny. 

There is a marginal note on this verse in S/028 (from Swanson): 

Matqan o iereuj en Bhqleem genna qugateraj treijÇ Marian( Sobbh( 

Annan) 

h Maria genna Salwmhn thn maian) 

h Sobbh genna thn Elisabet) 

h de Anna thn agian qko®n® ¿qeotokon = mother of GodÀ 

wj einai thn Elisabet kai thn agian Marian kai Salwmhn thn 

maian ek triwn adelfwn qhliwn (qh/luj, women). 

ton de prodromon (forerunner) kai thn Salwmhn thn gunaika Iwshf 

duo adelfwn arenwn) (arsenwn?) 

o Baraciaj genna ton Zacarian kai ton Aggaion( outoj th¿nÀ 

iw®¿annhnÀ( outoj thn Salwmhn thn gunaika Iwshf tou tektonoj) 

o de Iwshf ix authj genna Iakwbon( Simwna( Ioudan( Iwsh( Esqhr( 

Marian) 

Mattan (Mt 1:15), the priest in Bethlehem, begat three daughters: Maria, Sobbe, Anna. 

Maria gave birth to Salome, the midwife. 

Sobbe gave birth to Elisabeth. 

But Anna (gave birth to) the holy mother of God. 

So are Elisabeth and the holy Maria and Salome the midwife from three sisters (lit. female 

brothers). 

But the forerunner and Salome the wife of Joseph are from two male brothers: 

Barachias begat Zacharias and Haggai, the former (then) Johannes, the latter Salome, the wife 

of Joseph, the carpenter. 

But Joseph with her begat Jakobus, Simon, Judas, Jose, Esther, Maria.

It might be interesting to identify the earliest source of this text. S was 

written in the year 949. The text shows certain agreements with the 

Protogospel of James (Zacharias father of John, a Salome appears, Anna as Maria's 

mother). 

Compare: 

A. Martin "Matthieu 1:16 dans le palimpseste Syriaque du Sinai" Filología 

Neotestamentaria 15 (2002) 87-94 [has a "living text" approach] 


TVU 5 



Cristou/ VIhsou/ B, Or 1/2 , Jerome, Weiss, WH mg 

Cristou/ pc, Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, pers/arab mss , Ir Lat , Diatess Sy , Tert, 

Jerome, Aug 

WH have VIhsou/ in brackets. 

christi d (� D?) 

VIhsou/ W, pc, pers/arab mss 

P1(3 rd CE) reads txt. 

D has a lacuna, but d has "christi" so it is quite probable that D read this too. 

The Origen quote is doubtful, as Tregelles (Account.., 1854, p. 189) notes: "The 

passage occurs in Jerome's Latin translation of Origen's 28 th Homily on St. 

Luke, where the words are, 'Christi autem Jesu generatio sic erat.' This is 

rather doubtful ground for citing Origen's authority, especially as in the Greek 

fragments of this very homily we find the common reading." 

According to T. Baarda (Lille Colloq. 2000) the reading of the Syriac Diatessaron 

(Ephrem) is: "The birth of Christ thus was". McCarthy gives it as "The birth of 

the Messiah took place as follows." The Arabic Diatessaron has "the birth of 

Jesus the Messiah". 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Compare previous verse 17: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:17 ... e[wj tou/ Cristou/ geneai. dekate,ssarejÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:1 Bi,bloj gene,sewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ uiòu/ Daui.d 

NA 27 Matthew 11:2 ~O de. VIwa,nnhj avkou,saj evn tw/| desmwthri,w| ta. e;rga 

tou/ Cristou/ pe,myaj dia. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ 

NA 27 Mark 1:1 VArch. tou/ euvaggeli,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/ Îuiòu/ qeou/ÐÅ 

NA 27 John 1:17 h` ca,rij kai. h` avlh,qeia dia. VIhsou/ Cristou/ evge,netoÅ 

NA 27 John 17:3 au[th de, evstin h` aivw,nioj zwh. i[na ginw,skwsin se. to.n 

mo,non avlhqino.n qeo.n kai. o]n avpe,steilaj VIhsou/n Cristo,nÅ

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:1 Tou/ de. VIhsou/ gennhqe,ntoj evn Bhqle,em th/j VIoudai,aj 

VIhsou/ Cristou/ W, 346, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 16:20 o[ti auvto,j evstin o` cristo,jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 16:20 o[ti auvto,j evstin VIhsou/j o` cristo,j 

Byz 01 C2 , C, (D), K, W, f13 a,c , 892, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, mae-1+2, bo 

txt 01*, B, L, D, Q, P, f1, f13 b , 28, 565, 700, 1342, 1424, 1675, al, 

it, vg mss , Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, Or 

NA 27 Matthew 16:21 VApo. to,te h;rxato o` VIhsou/j deiknu,ein toi/j maqhtai/ 

VIhsou/j Cristo,j 01*, B*, sa mss , mae-1, bo 

Gospels Acts/Epistles 

"Jesus Christ" 5 130 

"Christ Jesus" - 95 

In only very few of the cases an article has been applied to the term! to.n 

cristo.n VIhsou/n appears 3 times in Acts and once in Col 2:6. The order 

VIhsou/j Cristo,j with the article appears nowhere else. Ehrman (Orthodox 

Corruption, p. 173, note 96) writes: "Against this it should be noted that the 

wording of the entire clause is peculiar." 

The B reading is perhaps a conformation to Pauline usage. 

It has been suggested that the omission of "Jesus" is not simply an accidental 

error, but that it was deliberate. That this was the Genesis of **Christ**, not 

just Jesus. 

Unfortunately D has a lacuna here. 

Regarding the Persian/Arabian versions, it is possible that they have been 

translated from Syriac (K. Lake, Text of the NT, notes: "traces of Caesarean 

readings"). 

Metzger suggests that the Western reading might be a conformation to the 

previous verse 17. Zahn argues the reverse, that verse 17 shows the correct 

form and that verse 18 is corrupted. 

Ehrman writes: "Perhaps the best way to resolve the problems of both sequence 

and terminology is to observe that the clause provides the transition between 

the genealogy of verses 2-17 and the birth narrative of verses 18-25. The 

article, then, serves as a weak relative whose antecedent is the subject of the 

preceding pericope (VIhsou/ Cristou/, v.1)."

"We know that this verse was important for orthodox heresiologists: they quote 

it explicitly to confute Gnostic Christologies that separate Jesus from the 

Christ. Irenaeus in particular accrues some significant mileage from the 

Western reading: 'The birth of Christ occurred in this way.' Irenaeus argues 

that because the text speaks specifically of the birth 'of Christ', it directly 

confutes those who 'assert that Jesus was he who was born of Mary but that 

Christ was he who descended from above' (Adv. haer. III, 16:2). Thus the 

shorter text proved particularly amendable for the proto-orthodox in their 

struggles against Gnostic Christologies: Mary's infant was the Christ." 

"... the change was made some time earlier in the second century by an orthodox 

scribe who shared Irenaeus' concern to emphasize against the separationists 

that it was precisely the Christ who was born of Mary." (Ehrman, p. 138f.) 

Zahn (Com. Mat) thinks to the contrary that the Western reading is original. He 

says that the phrase tou/ de. Cristou/ h` ge,nesij was striking as a note for 

the birth of a child with the name Jesus. The addition of "Jesus" is only natural. 

But the resulting style is bad. Therefore the change of B et al. 

tou/ de. Cristou/ fits Matthean style (Mt 11:2). 

Compare 16:20,21 below. 


TVU 6 


NA 27 Matthew 1:22 tou/to de. o[lon ge,gonen i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n u`po. 

kuri,ou dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj\ 

dia. VHsai

TVU 7 


NA 27 Matthew 1:23 ivdou. h` parqe,noj evn gastri. e[xei kai. te,xetai uiò,n( 

kai. kale,sousin to. o;noma auvtou/ VEmmanouh,l( 

kale,seij D, pc, d, ff 1 , bo mss , Or, Eus 

vocabit Swanson adds: 2* 

Lacuna: Q, 1424 

B: umlaut (1236 A 6 L) uiò,n( kai. kale,sousin 

Parallel: 

LXX Isaiah 7:14 ivdou. h` parqe,noj evn gastri. e[xei kai. te,xetai uiò,n 

kai. kale,seij to. o;noma auvtou/ Emmanouhl 

kale,sousin LXX mss 

Compare context: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:21 te,xetai de. uiò,n( kai. kale,seij to. o;noma auvtou/ 

VIhsou/n\ auvto.j ga.r sw,sei to.n lao.n auvtou/ avpo. tw/n a`martiw/n auvtw/nÅ 

Clearly a harmonization to Isaiah and/or context. The singular fits better to 

verse 21. 


TVU 8 


NA 27 Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken uiò,n\ kai. 

evka,lesen to. o;noma auvtou/ VIhsou/nÅ 

omit: k, Sy-S 

Sy-C has the words, basically: 

"and chastily lived with her until she bare the son." 


(Ephrem) is: "[and?] chastily he lived with her" McCarthy has this also. Ephrem 

has the text three times. 


B: no umlaut 

Is it probable that the words have been omitted due to h.t. (OU – OU). If the 

ou- is expressed in the versions is not clear. Compare next variant. 

Zahn (Com. Mat) suggests that perhaps from the negation of marital relations 

before the birth disagreeable conclusions for the time after the birth have 

been drawn. 


TVU 9 


NA 27 Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken 

uiò,n\ kai. evka,lesen to. o;noma auvtou/ VIhsou/nÅ 

omit ou-: B*, 1042S*, Weiss 

NA 25 , WH both have it in brackets 

B: ou- was added in minuscule script in the left margin (p. 1236 A 17), acc. to 

Tischendorf by B 3 . 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:9 proh/gen auvtou,j( e[wj evlqw.n evsta,qh evpa,nw ou- h=n to. 

paidi,onÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 5:18 avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n\ e[wj a'n pare,lqh| o` ouvrano.j kai. 

h` gh/( ivw/ta e]n h' mi,a kerai,a ouv mh. pare,lqh| avpo. tou/ no,mou( e[wj a'n 

pa,nta ge,nhtaiÅ 

omit 1. a'n: 13 

omit 2. a'n: B*, L2211, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 5:25 i;sqi euvnow/n tw/| avntidi,kw| sou tacu,( e[wj o[tou ei= metV 

auvtou/ evn th/| o`dw/|( 

e[wj ou- 124, 788(=f13), 28 

NA 27 Matthew 5:26 avmh.n le,gw soi( ouv mh. evxe,lqh|j evkei/qen( e[wj a'n 

avpodw/|j to.n e;scaton kodra,nthnÅ 

e[wj ou- L, W, 1424 

e[wj 33 

NA 27 Matthew 10:23 ouv mh. tele,shte ta.j po,leij tou/ VIsrah.l e[wj a'n e;lqh| 

o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

omit a'n: 01*, B, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 12:20 ka,lamon suntetrimme,non ouv katea,xei kai. li,non 

tufo,menon ouv sbe,sei( e[wj a'n evkba,lh| eivj ni/koj th.n kri,sinÅ 

e[wj L, 700 

NA 27 Matthew 13:33 h]n labou/sa gunh. evne,kruyen eivj avleu,rou sa,ta tri,a 

e[wj ou- evzumw,qh o[lonÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:22 kai. proa,gein auvto.n eivj to. pe,ran( e[wj ou- avpolu,sh| 

tou.j o;cloujÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 17:9 mhdeni. ei;phte to. o[rama e[wj ou- o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou 

evk nekrw/n evgerqh/|Å

NA 27 Matthew 18:30 o` de. ouvk h;qelen avlla. avpelqw.n e;balen auvto.n eivj 

fulakh.n e[wj avpodw/| to. ovfeilo,menonÅ 

e[wj 01, B, C, L, 892 

e[wj ou- D, K, P, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, Maj 

NA 27 Matthew 18:34 kai. ovrgisqei.j o` ku,rioj auvtou/ pare,dwken auvto.n 

toi/j basanistai/j e[wj ou- avpodw/| pa/n to. ovfeilo,menonÅ 

omit ou-: B, 579 vid , 892, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 24:34 avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti ouv mh. pare,lqh| h` genea. au[th 

e[wj a'n pa,nta tau/ta ge,nhtaiÅ 

omit a'n: 01, 1241, pc 

e[wj ou- 157 

NA 27 Matthew 24:39 kai. ouvk e;gnwsan e[wj h=lqen o` kataklusmo.j kai. 

h=ren a[pantaj( ou[twj e;stai Îkai.Ð h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

e[wj ou- D, 33, 157 

NA 27 Matthew 26:36 kaqi,sate auvtou/ e[wj Îou-Ð avpelqw.n evkei/ 

proseu,xwmaiÅ 

e[wj a'n D, K, P, L, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 157, 565, al 

e[wj 01, C, 0281, 28, 33, 700, 892, 1424, pc 

e[wj ou- a'n P53 vid , A, pc 

txt B, 067, 124, 579, 1071, Maj 

Possibly the ou- was unintelligible to the scribe or it was simply an oversight. 

Weiss argues (Textkritik, p. 95) that e[wj alone is rare and that there is a 

tendency to insert the fuller form (e[wj ou-, o[tou or a'n, compare Mt 18:30). 

Note that in 5:18, 10:23, 18:30, 18:34 B omits, too, but in 26:36 it preserves it 

almost exclusively. 


TVU 10 

NA 27 Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken 

uiò,n\ kai. evka,lesen to. o;noma auvtou/ VIhsou/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken 

to.n uiò,n auvth/j to.n prwto,tokon\ kai. evka,lesen to. o;noma auvtou/ VIhsou/ 

T&T #4 

Byz C, D, L, W, D, 087, 124 + f13 a,c , 892, 1071, Maj, 

aur, f, ff 1 , vg, Sy-P, Sy-H, (Diatess), Basil(4 th CE) 

Variant: L, D*, d, q: to.n uiò,n\ to.n prwto,tokon 

txt 01, B, Z vid , 071 vid , f1, 788(=f13), 33, 1192, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, mae-1, (sa, bo) 

to.n uiò,n bo 

uiò,n auvth/j 1182, sa 

auvtw/| uiò,n Sy-S 


(Ephrem) is: "until she bare her first-born" (omitting "son"). McCarthy has "Until 

she gave birth to her First-Born". The Arabic Diatessaron has "until she brought 

forth her firstborn son". 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 2:7 kai. e;teken to.n uiò.n auvth/j to.n prwto,tokon 

omit to.n prwto,tokon: W 

Compare LXX: 

LXX 2 Samuel 11:27 kai. evgenh,qh auvtw/| eivj gunai/ka kai. e;teken auvtw/| 

uiò,n 

LXX Hosea 1:3 kai. evporeu,qh kai. e;laben th.n Gomer qugate,ra Debhlaim 

kai. sune,laben kai. e;teken auvtw/| uiò,n 

Clearly a harmonization to Lk. There is no reason to omit this important clause. 

T. Baarda gives the following discussion (Lille Colloq. 2000): 

"As a consequence one might conjecture that in early textual history there were 

two rival readings: (1) uiò,n and (2) auvth/j to.n prwto,tokon. Perhaps we may go 

even further and posit the view that the latter reading 'her first-born' was

original and corrected into 'a son'. For the conclusion that might be drawn from 

the word 'first-born' is that Mary had other sons, a view that was not very 

welcome in the church.". (compare complete discussion, p. 131 ff.) 

Baarda seems to be unaware of the Lukan parallel. 

Note that W (which is Alexandrian in this part of Lk) omits to.n prwto,tokon 

for no apparent reason (doctrinal?). 


TVU 11 


NA 27 Matthew 2:11 kai. evlqo,ntej eivj th.n oivki,an ei=don to. paidi,on meta. 

Mari,aj th/j mhtro.j auvtou/( 

eu-ron 2 C , 474, al, Lat(aur, b, c, ff 1 , g 1 , vg), TR 

invenerunt 

Legg erroneously notes 892 for this reading. Checked at the film. 

a, d, f, k, q read txt (=viderunt). 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 7:30 kai. avpelqou/sa eivj to.n oi=kon auvth/j eu-ren to. paidi,on 

beblhme,non evpi. th.n kli,nhn kai. to. daimo,nion evxelhluqo,jÅ 

Probably from the Latin. 


TVU 12 


NA 27 Matthew 2:13 VAnacwrhsa,ntwn de. auvtw/n ivdou. a;ggeloj kuri,ou 

fai,netai katV o;nar 

tw/| VIwsh.f le,gwn\ evgerqei.j para,labe to. paidi,on 

kai. th.n mhte,ra auvtou/ kai. feu/ge eivj Ai;gupton kai. i;sqi evkei/ e[wj a'n 

ei;pw soi\ me,llei ga.r ~Hrw,|dhj zhtei/n to. paidi,on tou/ avpole,sai auvto,Å 

auvtw/n eivj th.n cw,ran auvtw/n B 

tw/n ma,gwn 

C C , D C , 2 C , 892, pc 

katV o;nar evfa,nh B, WH mg , Lachmann 

evfa,nh katV o;nar 372 (acc. to Legg) 

one of these: sa, mae-1 

apparuit in somnis 

Latt 

katV o;nar fai,netai C, K, P, 33, 157, 700, 892, 1071, pc, Trg 

txt 01, D, L, D, f1, f13, 22, 579, Maj, Sy?, bo 

fai,netai tw/| VIwsh.f katV o;nar 

W 

The versional assignment here is doubtful. 

Lacuna: Z, Q, 1424 

B: no umlaut 

fai,netai indicative present middle/passive 3rd person singular 

evfa,nh indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular 

Compare immediate context: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:12 kai. crhmatisqe,ntej katV o;nar mh. avnaka,myai pro.j 

~Hrw,|dhn( diV a;llhj o`dou/ avnecw,rhsan eivj th.n cw,ran auvtw/nÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 1:20 tau/ta de. auvtou/ evnqumhqe,ntoj ivdou. a;ggeloj kuri,ou 

katV o;nar evfa,nh auvtw/| le,gwn\ 

NA 27 Matthew 2:19 ivdou. a;ggeloj kuri,ou fai,netai katV o;nar tw/| VIwsh.f 

BYZ Matthew 2:19 ivdou. a;ggeloj kuri,ou katV o;nar fai,netai tw/| VIwsh.f 

Two rare, but typical errors of B. 

txt 01, B, D, Z, 0250, f1, f13, L2211, pc 

Byz C, L, W, 0233, 33, Maj

The word-order variant is either inspired from 1:20 or from 2:19 (Byz). Or both, 

2:13 and 2:19 are harmonizations to 1:20. 

In verse 19 B does not repeat the careless error. 


TVU 13 

NA 27 Matthew 2:18 fwnh. evn ~Rama. hvkou,sqh( klauqmo.j kai. 

ovdurmo.j polu,j\ 

BYZ Matthew 2:18 Fwnh. evn ~Rama. hvkou,sqh qrh/noj kai. klauqmo.j kai. 

ovdurmo.j polu,j\ 

T&T #5 

Byz C, D, K, P, L, W, D, 0233, f13, 33, 892, 1071, Maj, 

Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-H, Or 

txt 01, B, Z, 0250, f1, 22, 279, 372, 1491, 

Lat, Sy-P, Co, Justin(2 nd CE) 

bo omits klauqmo.j kai. ovdurmo.j polu,j 

Z has brugmo.j for ovdurmo.j (c.f. Mt. 8:12) 

Lacuna: Q 

B: umlaut! (line 1 A, p. 1237) klauqmo.j kai. ovdurmo.j 

LXX parallel: 

LXX Jeremiah 38:15 ou[twj ei=pen ku,rioj fwnh. evn Rama hvkou,sqh qrh,nou 

kai. klauqmou/ kai. ovdurmou/ 

Compare also: 

Mt 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30 and Lk 13:28 

evkei/ e;stai o` klauqmo.j kai. o` brugmo.j tw/n ovdo,ntwnÅ 

The Byzantine reading could be a harmonization to the LXX text. 

An omission by h.t. is not very probable because it is the first word that is 

omitted and not the second. 

Justin cites the short form in his dialogue with Trypho 78. 




TVU 14 

1. Difficult variant: 


NA 27 Matthew 3:1 VEn de. tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij paragi,netai VIwa,nnhj o` 

baptisth.j khru,sswn evn th/| evrh,mw| th/j VIoudai,aj 

NA 27 Matthew 3:2 Îkai.Ð le,gwn\ metanoei/te\ h;ggiken ga.r h` basilei,a tw/n 

ouvranw/nÅ 

omit 01, B, 118, q, vg mss , Co, aeth, Hilarius (4 th CE), 

WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bois, Tis, Bal 

txt C, D, L, W, 0233, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy 

Tregelles has kai. in brackets. 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:17 VApo. to,te h;rxato o` VIhsou/j khru,ssein kai. le,gein\ 

metanoei/te\ h;ggiken ga.r h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

NA 27 Mark 1:14 Meta. de. to. paradoqh/nai to.n VIwa,nnhn h=lqen o` VIhsou/j 

eivj th.n Galilai,an khru,sswn to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/ 

NA 27 Mark 1:15 kai. le,gwn o[ti peplh,rwtai o` kairo.j kai. h;ggiken h` 

basilei,a tou/ qeou/\ metanoei/te kai. pisteu,ete evn tw/| euvaggeli,w|Å 

Compare also Mt 1:20, 2:13, 2:19-20 (evfa,nh le,gwn). 

Zahn says that the kai. is "unwillingly missed" (ungern entbehrt) after 

khru,sswn. 

Support is slim and incoherent. 

Rating: - (indecisive) 

(brackets ok)

TVU 15 


NA 27 Matthew 3:3 ou-toj ga,r evstin o` r`hqei.j dia. VHsai

TVU 16 


NA 27 Matthew 3:5 To,te evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n Þ ~Ieroso,luma kai. pa/sa 

h` VIoudai,a kai. pa/sa h` 

peri,cwroj tou/ VIorda,nou( 

Not in NA and SQE, but in Legg, Tis and Greeven! 

Þ pa/sa h` f1, 22, 1365, a, k, l, vg ms , arm, Or 

pa/sa 517, 892, 1424, pc 

ta. 157, 1071 C 

filii Sy-S, Sy-C 

01: The phrase kai. pa/sa h` before peri,cwroj is written above an unreadable 

erasure by 01 C1 . 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 1:5 kai. evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n pa/sa h` VIoudai,a cw,ra kai. 

NA 27 oi` ~Ierosolumi/tai pa,ntej( 

Luke 3:3 kai. h=lqen eivj pa/san Îth.nÐ peri,cwron tou/ VIorda,nou 

khru,sswn ba,ptisma metanoi,aj eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n( 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:34 

kai. ivdou. pa/sa h` po,lij 

evxh/lqen eivj u`pa,nthsin tw/| VIhsou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 21:10 Kai. eivselqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj ~Ieroso,luma evsei,sqh 

pa/sa h` po,lij le,gousa\ ti,j evstin ou-tojÈ 

Probably a natural addition from immediate context. 

Note that we have here with peri,cwroj a significant Minor Agreements of Mt 

and Lk against Mk: 

pa/sa h` peri,cwroj tou/ VIorda,nou( Mt 

pa/san Îth.nÐ peri,cwron tou/ VIorda,nou Lk 


TVU 17 

2. 

NA 27 Difficult variant: 

Matthew 3:6 kai. evbapti,zonto evn tw/| VIorda,nh| potamw/| u`pV auvtou/ 

evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 3:6 kai. evbapti,zonto evn tw/| VIorda,nh| u`p auvtou/ 

evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n 

Byz C C , D, K, P, L, f13, 892, Maj, Lat, mae-1, Gre, Bois 

eivj to.n VIorda,nhn 983, 1689 (=f13 c ) 

txt 01, B, C*, M, S, W, D, 0233, f1, 22, 33, 157, 346, 579, 1424, al, 

q, Sy, sa, bo, arm, Or 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 1:5 kai. evbapti,zonto u`pV auvtou/ evn tw/| VIorda,nh| potamw/| 

evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nÅ 

VIorda,nh| D, W, Q, 28, 565, 700, L2211, Lat 

Note also: 

NA 27 John 1:28 tau/ta evn Bhqani,a| evge,neto pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( o[pou h=n 

o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwnÅ 

pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou potamou/ 01, Sy-C 

VIorda,nh| potamw/| is a rather unusual phrase. It appears only here and two 

times in Joshua. VIorda,nhj alone appears 232 times (13 times NT). VIorda,nh| 

potamw/| is (probably) used in Pap. Egerton 2. 

Note Mt 3:5 and 3:13 where VIorda,nh| alone is used too. 

VIorda,nh| potamw/| could be a harmonization to Mk. VIorda,nh| alone could be a 

correction to the more common usage. Weiss: potamw/| omitted as superfluous. 

Compare the previous verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:5 To,te evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n ~Ieroso,luma kai. pa/sa h` 

VIoudai,a kai. pa/sa h` peri,cwroj tou/ VIorda,nou( [the region along the Jordan,] 

Is it possible that potamw/| has been added to distinguish the river from the 

region?

Sometimes potamo,j can be translated as "water", compare: Joshua 4:7 and 5:1 

LXX Joshua 4:7 kai. su. dhlw,seij tw/| ui`w/| sou le,gwn o[ti evxe,lipen o` 

Iorda,nhj potamo.j avpo. prosw,pou kibwtou/ diaqh,khj kuri,ou 

"then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off in front of 

the ark of the covenant of the LORD." 

LXX Joshua 5:1 ... o[ti avpexh,ranen ku,rioj o` qeo.j to.n Iorda,nhn potamo.n 

evk tw/n e;mprosqen tw/n ui`w/n Israhl ... 

"When ... heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan for the 

Israelites ..." 

Rating: - (indecisive)

TVU 18 

3. Difficult variant 


NA 27 Matthew 3:7 ivdw.n de. pollou.j tw/n Farisai,wn kai. Saddoukai,wn 

evrcome,nouj evpi. to. ba,ptisma auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j\ gennh,mata evcidnw/n( 

ti,j u`pe,deixen u`mi/n fugei/n avpo. th/j mellou,shj ovrgh/jÈ 

omit: 01*, B, L1043, sa, mae-1, geo, Or, NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Bal 

01 corrected by 01 C1 

Tregelles has auvtou/ in brackets. Tis has the word! 

VIwa,nnou 346 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 3:7 :Elegen ou=n toi/j evkporeuome,noij o;cloij baptisqh/nai 

u`pV auvtou/\ gennh,mata evcidnw/n( ... 

Possibly omitted to improve style: auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j. It is also possible that 

it's a conformation to Lk, but the support is rather slim. The term ba,ptisma 

auvtou/ is unique. It could have been omitted to avoid the notion of different 

baptisms. 

Compare: 

Acts 18:25 …though he knew only the baptism of John. 

Acts 19:3 Then he said: "Into what then were you baptized?" 

They answered, "Into John's baptism." 


TVU 19 


h;dh de. h` avxi,nh pro.j th.n rì,zan tw/n de,ndrwn kei/tai\ 

BYZ Matthew 3:10 

h;dh de. kai. h` avxi,nh pro.j th.n rì,zan tw/n de,ndrwn kei/tai\ 

Byz L, f13, 22, 33, 157, 892, Maj, L1043, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, C, D S , W, D, 0233, f1, 372, 700, pc, Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co, Or 

Lat: iam enim securis ad radicem … (= h;dh ga.r) 

d, k: iam autem securis ad radicem … 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: umlaut! (line 37 B, page 1237) tw/| VAbraa,mÅ 10 h;dh de. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 3:9 h;dh de. kai. h` avxi,nh pro.j th.n rì,zan tw/n de,ndrwn kei/tai\ 

omit kai.: D, 713, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, arm 

(for 713 compare variant Mt 17:26, Diatessaron) 

Lat: iam enim 

Clearly a harmonization to Lk, probably to improve style. de. kai. is a 

characteristically Lukan expression. It appears 47 times in Lk/Acts, but only 6 

times in Mt. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has h;dh de. h` avxi,nh as safe for Q. So also Harnack. 

the Latin iam enim is probably translation freedom. 


TVU 20 

4. 


Matthew 3:11 auvto.j u`ma/j bapti,sei evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,\ 

BYZ Matthew 3:11 auvto.j u`ma/j bapti,sei evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| 

Not cited in NA and SQE! 

Byz E, S, V, W, 2, 28, 517, 579, 1424, Maj, m, Sy-Pal 

txt P101 vid , 01, B, C, D S , K, P, L, M, U, W, G, D, f1, f13, 22, 33, 565, 892, al, 

L1043, Latt, Sy, Co, Or, Basil(4 th CE), Diatess Ephrem 

evn puri, kai. pneu,mati a`gi,w| Sy-S 

P101 reads: ÎenÐ pni® ag ñ ñ kaÎi puri ou toÐ 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: umlaut! (line 9 C, page 1237) a`gi,w| kai. puri,\ 12 ou- to. ptu,on 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 1:8 evgw. evba,ptisa u`ma/j u[dati( auvto.j de. bapti,sei u`ma/j evn 

pneu,mati a`gi,w|Å 

NA 27 Luke 3:16 avpekri,nato le,gwn pa/sin o` VIwa,nnhj\ evgw. me.n u[dati 

bapti,zw u`ma/j\ ... auvto.j u`ma/j bapti,sei evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,\ 


NA 27 Matthew 3:10 … evkko,ptetai kai. eivj pu/r ba,lletaiÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 3:12 … to. de. a;curon katakau,sei puri. avsbe,stw|Å 

Compare: 

NA 27 John 1:33 kavgw. ouvk h;|dein auvto,n( avllV o` pe,myaj me bapti,zein evn 

u[dati evkei/no,j moi ei=pen\ evfV o]n a'n i;dh|j to. pneu/ma katabai/non kai. 

me,non evpV auvto,n( ou-to,j evstin o` 

bapti,zwn evn pneu,mati a`gi,w|Å 

NA 27 Acts 11:16 evmnh,sqhn de. tou/ r`h,matoj tou/ kuri,ou w`j e;legen\ 

VIwa,nnhj me.n evba,ptisen u[dati( u`mei/j de. baptisqh,sesqe evn pneu,mati 

a`gi,w|Å 

Compare also: 

LXX Psalm 103:4 o` poiw/n tou.j avgge,louj auvtou/ pneu,mata kai. tou.j 

leitourgou.j auvtou/ pu/r fle,gon 

Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire.

Compare the parallels: 

Lk 3:16 pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri, fixed (1194, 1574 omit kai. puri,) 

Mk 1:8 pneu,mati a`gi,w| fixed (P, pc, Sy-P, add kai. puri,) 

Jo 1:33 pneu,mati a`gi,w|Å fixed (P75 Cvid , C*, sa, Or add kai. puri,) 

NA additionally lists the omission of a`gi,w| in Lk by the Byzantine minuscule 

64 and Tert: "in spiritu et igni." Tis additionally lists min. 63 and a similar 

Latin Augustine quote (De Cons. Evang. II. 12 § 26): de baptismo autem hoc 

ab utroque [distat] quia non dixit [Marcus] et igni, sed tantum in spir. 

sancto. Sicut enim Matthaeus, ita et Lucas dixit, et eodem ordine: Ipse vos 

baptizabit in spiritu et igni, nisi quod Lucas non addidit sancto. sicut 

Matthaeus dixit. 

Tis also has a Heracleon quote (from Clement, Eclog 25): "ercetai de mou 

opisw o baptizwn en pneumati kai puri". 

It is noteworthy that pu/r is also mentioned in Mt 3:10 and 3:12, same in Lk. 

The addition of kai. puri, could be a harmonization to Lk. 

The omission of kai. puri, could be a harmonization to Mk. 

Normally a harmonization to Lk is more probable than to Mk. 

On the 2SH the pericope is in Q and the omission would be the only serious 

difference. The IQP has kai. puri, for Q. 

Note also that the IQP Crit.Ed. has a`gi,w| in double brackets (= "probable but 

uncertain"). They comment: "Is a`gi,w| in Q or from Mk?". 

John Kloppenborg comments (private communication, 03/2002): 

Q 3:16 is one of the Q-Mark overlap texts. It seems clear that Q's text read at least PURI. 

The problem is whether it also read PNEUMATI or PNEUMATI AGIW, in agreement with Mark, 

or whether the latter phrase in Matt and Luke is due to both conflating Mark (PNEUMATI 

AGIW) and Q (AGIW). The variants #9-10 are present because there is in the body of 

discussion of the reconstruction of Q those who have argued that Mark and Q had different 

formulations, and that Matthew and Luke have conflated them (even though the IQP itself 

decided that Q probably had both spirit and fire. Thus the variant simply signals that there is a 

*potential* problem that reconstruction has to deal with. The reason for the [[ ]] around AGIW 

has to do with the argument, commonly found in the literature than PNEUMATI KAI PURI is a 

hendiadys, referring to divine judgment and might well have been what was in Q, with Mark 

supplying AGIW (And Matt and Luke taking it over from Mark. Again, in the end the IQP decided 

that AGIW was in Q, but with less certainty than PNEUMATI. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, 1907, p. 8) thinks that Q probably just read bapti,sei 

evn puri,, because it fits best to the following sentences in Q: Mt 6:21 ff. "the 

eye is the lamp of the body" etc.: 

"Am wahrscheinlichsten ist evn puri, denn nur dieses wird durch die folgenden Sätze gedeckt, 

währende das evn pneu,mati a`gi,w, ohne jede Folge bleibt."

Note also the following addition: 

NA 27 John 1:27 o` ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj( ou- ouvk eivmi. Îevgw.Ð a;xioj i[na 

lu,sw auvtou/ to.n i`ma,nta tou/ u`podh,matoj Þ Å 

Þ e`kei/noj u`ma/j bapti,sei evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,\ 

E, F, G, H, N, 2* 


(variant should be cited in NA and SQE!) 

External Rating: 2? (NA probably original) 


TVU 21 


NA 27 Matthew 3:12 ou- to. ptu,on evn th/| ceiri. auvtou/ kai. diakaqariei/ th.n 

a[lwna auvtou/ kai. suna,xei to.n si/ton auvtou/ eivj th.n avpoqh,khn( to. de. 

a;curon katakau,sei puri. avsbe,stw|Å 

T&T #6 

1 eivj th.n avpoqh,khn f13, pc 100 , Did 

2 eivj th.n avpoqh,khn auvtou/ E, L, U, 279, 892, 983, 1424, pc 200 , Sy, mae-1 

3 auvtou/ eivj th.n avpoqh,khn 01, C, D S , D, 0233, f1, 22, 2786, Maj 1100 , 

L1043, Lat, sa, bo 

4 auvtou/ eivj th.n avpoqh,khn auvtou/ B, W, 372, 828, 1071, 1243, 2737, 

pc 40 , WH mg , Trg 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: no umlaut (but on previous line 12 C, p. 1237 auvtou/ kai. suna,xei to.n) 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 3:17 kai. sunagagei/n to.n si/ton eivj th.n avpoqh,khn auvtou/( 

01 C , D, pc: eivj th.n avpoqh,khn 

Reading 1 omits auvtou/ because there are already two such pronouns in the verse 

(Metzger: "literary purism"). 

Reading 2 could be a harmonization to Lk. 

Reading 4 adds a fourth auvtou/ either to make it more symmetrical or 

accidentally while monotonous copying. 

On the other hand reading 4 might be the original and the other readings are 

attempts to correct the repetitive style. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan eivj th.n avpoqh,khn auvtou/ for Q. Harnack 

(Sprüche Jesu, p. 88) has the Matthean form, txt above. 


TVU 22 



NA 27 Matthew 3:14 o` de. VIwa,nnhj diekw,luen auvto.n le,gwn\ evgw. crei,an 

e;cw u`po. sou/ baptisqh/nai( kai. su. e;rch| pro,j meÈ 

omit: 01*, B, L1043, L1602?, sa, Eus, NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal 


Tregelles has VIwa,nnhj in brackets. 

579 omits due to h.t. (13 to.n VIwa,nnhn … 14 o` de. VIwa,nnhj) 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: no umlaut 

diakwlu,w "prevent" 

Compare previous verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:13 To,te paragi,netai o` VIhsou/j avpo. th/j Galilai,aj evpi. 

to.n VIorda,nhn pro.j to.n VIwa,nnhn tou/ baptisqh/nai u`pV auvtou/Å 

Similar to the omission of the auvtou/ at 3:7. 

There is every reason for the addition of VIwa,nnhj here to make clear that it is 

John who is speaking and not Jesus. 


TVU 23 



NA 27 Matthew 3:14 o` de. VIwa,nnhj diekw,luen auvto.n le,gwn\ evgw. crei,an 

e;cw u`po. sou/ baptisqh/nai( kai. su. e;rch| pro,j meÈ 

NA 27 Matthew 3:15 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen pro.j auvto,n\ a;fej 

a;rti( ou[twj ga.r pre,pon evsti.n h`mi/n plhrw/sai pa/san dikaiosu,nhnÅ 

to,te avfi,hsin auvto,nÅ 

ei=pen auvtw/| P96(6 th CE), B, 118, f13, L844, L2211, pc, Lat?, 

WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bois 

txt P64(200 CE), 01, C, D S , L, P, W, 0233, f1, 33, 579, 892, 

Maj, L1043, WH mg 

ei=pen 0250, sa ms , bo ms 

ei=pen pro.j auvtoi/j K (P has a lacuna) 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 3:7 ivdw.n de. pollou.j tw/n Farisai,wn kai. Saddoukai,wn 

evrcome,nouj evpi. to. ba,ptisma auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j\ gennh,mata evcidnw/n( 

ti,j u`pe,deixen u`mi/n fugei/n avpo. th/j mellou,shj ovrgh/jÈ 

The txt reading is unusual for Mt: 

ei=pen auvtw/| 15 times 

ei=pen auvt* 47 times 

ei=pen pro.j only here 

This is already noted by Weiss (Comm. Mt): "pro.j auvto,n is completely against 

the evangelist's usage". 

It is possible that the pro.j auvto,n is a conformation to the preceding pro,j me. 

ei=pen pro.j is a typical Lukan form, it appears 36 times in Lk and ei=pen auvt* 

appears 55 times. 

The problem here is that the support for ei=pen auvtw/| is incoherent. Without B 

it would be clearly secondary.

The Latins reads "dixit ei" here. This would fit ei=pen auvtw/|. Normally they 

translate ei=pen pro.j auvto,n as "dixit ad illum" or "ad eum", but this is not 

clear-cut and may be translation freedom. 


TVU 24 


NA 27 Matthew 3:15 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen pro.j auvto,n\ a;fej a;rti( 

ou[twj ga.r pre,pon evsti.n h`mi/n plhrw/sai pa/san dikaiosu,nhnÅ to,te 

avfi,hsin auvto,n Þ Å 

Þ baptisqh/nai Sy-S, Sy-C 

Þ et cum baptizaretur , lumen ingens circum fulsit de aqua, ita ut timerant 

omnes qui advenrant a (4 th CE) 

Þ et cum baptizaretur Iesus, lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua, ita ut timerant 

omnes qui congregati erant g 1 (6 th CE) 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: umlaut! (line 30 C, page 1237) avfi,hsin auvto,nÅ 16 baptisqei.j 

"And when Jesus was being baptized a great light flashed from the water, so 

that all who had gathered there were afraid." 

Isho'dad of Merv's commentary of the Gospels: 

"And straightway, as the Diatessaron testifies, a great light shone" 

Ephrem's commentary on the Diatessaron, IV, 5 (Armenian. Syrial has lacuna): 

"the splendour of the light which appeared on the water" (McCarthy, p. 85) 

Romanos Melodos, First Hymn on the Epiphany, XVI.14.7-10: 

kai. pu/r evn tw/| VIorda,nh| la,mpon 

"and fire in the Jordan shining" 

A similar form appears in several other Gospel harmonies, probably based on the 

Diatessaron. 

Justin(2 nd CE) in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", 88:3: 

kai. pu/r avnh,fqh evn tw/| VIorda,nh| 

"and a fire was kindled in the Jordan" 

Kerygma Pauli (2 nd /3 rd CE?): The unknown author of the pseudo-Cyprian treatise 

De rebaptismate, who is perhaps from the third century, tells of a heretical 

group which supported its own baptismal practice with the appearance of fire. 

The author quotes (in ch. 17) from the apocryphal "Preachings of Paul" ("liber qui

inscribitur Pauli Praedicatio", ke,rugma Pau,lou) to show their heretical 

character: 

Item, cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in Evangelio 

nullo est scriptum. 

Further (it is related) that when he was baptized, fire appeared upon the water, a thing 

that is written in no Gospel. 

It has been suggested, but this is not clear at all, that the Praedicatio Pauli formed the last part 

of the Praedicatio Petri. The latter was already known to Heracleon, and consequently belongs to 

the beginning of the second century (the Praedicatio Petri is cited by Clement, Stromateis and 

by Origen). 

Epiphanius (4 th CE) reports (haer. 30:13) a variant from to. ~Ebrai?ko,n, the 

Gospel of the Ebionites: 

kai. euvqu.j perie,lamye to.n to,pon fw/j me,ga 

"and immediately a great light shone around the place" 

The words can also be found in the Hudra (Hudhra), an East Syrian liturgical 

book, presumably from the 6 th /7 th CE. It is based on earlier liturgical material 

from the 4 th and 5 th CE. For many more references compare Winkler (below). 

Compare also: 

Protogospel of James 19,2: 

kai< ejfa>nh fw~v me>ga ejn tw~| sphlai>w|, w[ste toulleto, e[wv ejfa>nh to< 

bre>fov. 

And a great light shone in the cave, so that our eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light 

gradually decreased, until the infant appeared. 

The tradition is very early (2 nd CE). 

Quite possibly the whole conception of light/fire was originally inspired from 

verse 11: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." 

It has been speculated by W. Petersen in his Diatessaron book that Justin used 

a Gospel harmony which was basically identical with to. ~Ebrai?ko,n. This then 

was used by Tatian as an additional source for his Diatessaron. If to. 

~Ebrai?ko,n was intended as a harmony or if it was just another Gospel is not 

known. This light/fire tradition originated probably in Jewish Christian circles, 

but managed to get respect in the West. 

All this is speculation. It is clear though that the above Old Latin reading is a 

relict of this tradition. 

.

J.N. Birdsall informed us that also Gregory of Antioch (6 th CE) notes the fire on 

the Jordan in his Homilia in S. Theophania (CPG 7385, PG 10, 1177-89). Compare: 

JTS 60 (2009) 531-37 

According to Winkler, one must see "light" and "fire" as two distinct features, 

with a different meaning. Compare: 

Gabriele Winkler "Die Licht-Erscheinung bei der Taufe Jesu und der Ursprung 

des Epiphaniefestes. Eine Untersuchung griechischer, syrischer, armenischer 

und lateinischer Quellen", Oriens Christianus 78 (1994) 177-229 

English translation: "The appearance of the light at the Baptism of Jesus and the Origins 

of the feast of Epiphany" in: "Between memory and hope: readings on the liturgical year", 

John Francis Baldovin and Maxwell E. Johnson (ed.), p. 291-348 

The Old Syriac reading is probably just translation freedom. So also P. Williams: 

Sy-S reads "then he permitted him to be baptized" and Sy-C similarly with no 

significant difference in meaning. The problem with NA27's citation is that 

without the last word it could be ambiguous. Williams: 

"I suspect it would be most naturally read as 'then he left him'. There is 

enough in the context to indicate that this is not the proper meaning ... 

Granted that a motivation for SC’s addition can so readily be proposed, it is 

precarious to use SC to reconstruct an unattested Greek reading." 




TVU 25 



NA 27 Matthew 3:16 baptisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j euvqu.j avne,bh avpo. tou/ u[datoj\ 

kai. ivdou. hvnew,|cqhsan Îauvtw/|Ð oi` ouvranoi,( kai. ei=den Îto.Ð pneu/ma Îtou/Ð 

qeou/ katabai/non w`sei. peristera.n Îkai.Ð evrco,menon evpV auvto,n\ 

BYZ Matthew 3:16 kai. baptisqei.j o` VIhsou/j avne,bh euvqu.j avpo. tou/ u[datoj\ 

kai. ivdou. avnew,|cqhsan auvtw/| oi` ouvranoi, kai. ei=den to. pneu/ma tou/ qeou/ 

katabai/non w`sei. peristera.n kai. evrco,menon evp auvto,n\ 

T&T #7+8 

omit 1: 01*, B, 789 S , 842, 1029, L1043, L1602?, L2211, vg mss , Sy-C, Sy-S, sa, 

Ir Lat , Cyr-Jer, G. Ebionites, NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL 

(789 + 1029 are Byzantine minuscules) 

avnew|cqh/nai oi` ouvranoi, L1043 (from Lk?) 

WH have auvtw/| in the margin 

01: the word has been added by corrector B (=01 C1 ). 

omit 2: 01, B, bo, NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL 

omit 3: 01, B, bo, NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL 

omit 4: 01*, B, L1043, Lat, Ir Lat , NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL 

01 corrected by 01 C2 , Trg has kai. in brackets 

d, f, l, vg mss have et. 

Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph Panarion 30:13): 

Kai. w`j avnh/lqen avpo. tou/ u[datoj( hvnoi,ghsan oi` ouvranoi. … 

Lacuna: D, Q 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

BNT Mark 1:10 kai. euvqu.j avnabai,nwn evk tou/ u[datoj ei=den scizome,nouj 

tou.j ouvranou.j kai. to. pneu/ma w`j peristera.n katabai/non eivj auvto,n\ 

BNT Luke 3:21-22 kai. VIhsou/ baptisqe,ntoj kai. proseucome,nou 

avnew|cqh/nai to.n ouvrano.n 22 kai. katabh/nai to. pneu/ma to. a[gion 

swmatikw/| ei;dei w`j peristera.n evpV auvto,n(

The auvtw/| sounds a bit unusual "the heavens were opened to him ", this probably 

resulted in its omission. Note that some unremarkable Byzantine minuscules 

support the omission, too. 

Weiss thinks that the articles have been added to make the phrase more solemn. 

The LXX prefers the anarthrous pneu/ma qeou/ (16 times). Isa 11:2 alone has 

pneu/ma tou/ qeou/. In the NT both forms are equally present (7:8). 

NA lists Irenaeus (Greek, POxy 405) as evidence for the omission of the 

articles, but this is very doubtful. The reconstruction in POxy Vol. 4 p. 264 gives 

it with the articles, but only the first t is visible: 

oj) anew@cqhsan oi ouranoi 

kai eiden t@o pna® tou qu® kata 

bainon wj p@eristeran kai 

ercomenon e@ij auton kai 

The line length with the articles is a bit too much, without a bit too little. 

[Note also the double Augment for hvnew,|cqhsan (indicative aorist passive 3rd 

person plural) supported by B, pc. The same word appears in Mt 9:30 supported 

by B, D, N, 33 and in 27:52 by C C , L, f1, 33, 579. In Jo 9:10 it is supported by 

P66, P75, 01, B, C, D, L, N, W, Y, 579, 700; Byz is divided.] 


Brackets: Rating: 1? = remove brackets.

TVU 26 


NA 27 Matthew 3:17 kai. ivdou. fwnh. evk tw/n ouvranw/n le,gousa Þ \ ou-to,j 

evstin o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn w-| euvdo,khsaÅ 

Þ pro.j auvto.n D, it(a, b, d, h), Sy-S, Sy-C 

ad eum 

Su. ei= o` uiò,j mou D, a, d, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Pal, Ir 

Lat(aur, c, f, ff 1 , l, vg) read txt. 

Tregelles notes add.:"Ev. Ebion. ap. Epiph. 30.13" 

McCarthy gives Ephrem as "This is my son and my beloved". 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 1:11 kai. fwnh. evge,neto evk tw/n ouvranw/n\ su. ei= o` uiò,j mou o` 

avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsaÅ 

NA 27 Luke 3:22 … kai. fwnh.n evx ouvranou/ gene,sqai\ su. ei= o` uiò,j mou o` 

avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsaÅ 

NA 27 2 Peter 1:17 

o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j mou ou-to,j evstin eivj o]n evgw. euvdo,khsa( 

BYZ ou-to,j evstin o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( eivj o]n evgw. euvdo,khsa\ 

Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph Panarion 30:13): 

Kai. w`j avnh/lqen avpo. tou/ u[datoj( hvnoi,ghsan oi` ouvranoi. kai. ei=den to. 

pneu/ma tou/ qeou/ evn ei;dei peristera/j katelqou,shj kai. eivjelqou,shj 

eivj auvto,n) Kai. fwnh. evge,neto evk tou/ ouvranou/( le,gousa( Su, mou ei= o` 

uiò,j o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. hvudo,khsa\ kai. pa,lin VEgw. sh,meron 

gege,nnhka, se) 

Probably a harmonization to Mk/Lk. 

There is no reason why all other witnesses should have changed the text here. 

Peter M. Head argues ("Christology and the Synoptic Problem", p. 204) that Mt 

presents the baptism of Jesus as a public event whereas Mk has it more private. 

This can be seen in connection with the previous variant in verse 3:16, the 

addition of auvtw/|, which "makes it a private revelation".

The Gospel of the Ebionites clearly has a conflate text here, compare variant to 

Lk 3:22. 


TVU 27 

NA 27 Matthew 4:10 to,te le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ u[page( satana/\ ge,graptai 

ga,r\ ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou proskunh,seij kai. auvtw/| mo,nw| latreu,seijÅ 

BYZ Matthew 4:10 to,te le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j u[page ovpi,sw mou Satana/\ 

ge,graptai ga,r Ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou proskunh,seij kai. auvtw/| mo,nw| 

latreu,seij 

T&T #9 

Byz C C , D, L, Z, f13 c , 28, 33, 118 S , 157, 579 C , 892 C , 1071, 1424, Maj 1300 , 

b, h, l*, (Sy-S), Sy-C, Sy-H**, sa pt , bo mss , Justin 1/2 

Vade, retro Satanas it (a, aur, c, ff 1 , g 1 ), vg mss , Ir arm 

Vade, retro me Satanas b, l 

Vade, post me Satanas d, h 

txt 01, B, C*, K, P, S, V, W, D, S, 0233, f1, f13 a,b , 22, 372, 565, 579*, 700, 

892*, 2680, 2737, al 150 , f, k, l C , vg, Sy-P, sa pt , bo, mae-1, 

Or, Basil(4 th CE) 

892: ovpi,sw mou has been added in the margin, probably not by the first hand. 

Sy-S: Burkitt has "Get behind, Satan!" 

Ephrem in his commentary has (McCarthy): "[He said], Get behind me, because …" 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 16:23 strafei.j ei=pen tw/| Pe,trw|\ u[page ovpi,sw mou( satana/\ 

NA 27 Mark 8:33 evpeti,mhsen Pe,trw| kai. le,gei\ u[page ovpi,sw mou( satana/( 

same addition by Byz in Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 4:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

ge,graptai\ ku,rion ... 

BYZ Luke 4:8 kai. avpokriqei.j auvtw/| ei=pen o` VIhsou/j ~Upage ovpi,sw mou( Satana/\ 

ge,graptai\ ku,rion ... 

Byz A, Q, Y, 0102, f13, 157, 1071, Maj, it, Sy-H, bo pt , Justin 1/2 

txt 01, B, D, L, W, X, f1, 788(f13), 22, 33, 579, 700, 892*, 1241, 2542, pc 7 , 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, sa, bo pt , arm, geo, Justin 1/2 

Probably a harmonization to Mt 16:23 or Mk 8:33. There is no reason for an 

omission.

The long form must be old here, because it appears already once in Justin (Dial. 

103:6). 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ ge,graptai\ for Q. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 35, 89) considers u[page satana/ as hardly original in 

Q. Why should Lk have deleted them? He suggests that the words come from 

Mk 8:33/Mt16:23. 




TVU 28 



NA 27 Matthew 4:16 o` lao.j o` kaqh,menoj evn sko,tei fw/j ei=den me,ga( kai. 

toi/j kaqhme,noij evn cw,ra| kai. skia/| qana,tou fw/j avne,teilen auvtoi/jÅ 

skoti,a| 01 C1 , B, Or pt , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg, Bal, SBL 

th/| skoti,a| D, W 

txt 01*, C, L, P, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892, Maj, Or pt , Tis 

01* reads skotifwsiden. Between the i and the f a 

small a has been added above the line. In Lk 1:79 01 also reads skoti for 

skotei. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

LXX Isaiah 9:1 o` lao.j o` poreuo,menoj evn sko,tei i;dete fw/j me,ga oi` 

katoikou/ntej evn cw,ra| kai. skia/| qana,tou fw/j la,myei evfV u`ma/j 

kaqh,menoj A 

NA 27 John 1:5 kai. to. fw/j evn th/| skoti,a| fai,nei( kai. h` skoti,a auvto. ouv 

kate,labenÅ 

sko,tei sko,toj dative neuter singular 

skoti,a| skoti,a dative feminine singular 

sko,toj skoti,a 

LXX 100 11 

NT 31 16 

131 27 = 5 : 1 

sko,toj skoti,a 

Mt 7 1 

Mk 1 0 

Lk 4 1 

Jo 1 8 

sko,toj appears more often overall in the Greek Bible and also more often in Mt. 

Here it could also be a harmonization to the LXX Isa quote. 

skoti,a appears often in Hellenistic Greek. This appears similar to the oi=koj / 

oivki,a mixture.

The value of skoti,a| is lowered by the fact that it appears in D, W with the 

article and in 01, B without. It is possible that the D, W reading is simply a 

reminiscence of the well known verse Jo 1:5. Note that W is Byzantine in Mt. 


TVU 29 


NA 27 Matthew 4:17 VApo. to,te h;rxato o` VIhsou/j khru,ssein kai. le,gein\ 

metanoei/te\ h;ggiken ga.r h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

omit: 1582 mg , k, Sy-S, Sy-C, (Eus, Victor Antioch?), WH mg 

1582 is not in NA, compare Amy Anderson (Family 1, 2004) 

1582 mg : to. metanoe@i/te# e;xwqen par@e,#keito w`j u[ster@on# prosteqe,n 

= "the metanoei/te stood outside, as later added" 

This marginal comment has been written by the original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). Anderson 

thinks that it is more likely that Ephraim copied those marginalia from his exemplar, than that 

they are his own comments. Ephraim is known from his other work to have copied faithfully his 

material. The text of 1582, as well as 1739 is closely related to Origen/Caesarea. The archetype 

has been assigned to the late 5 th CE. 

Legg notes: "pro ga.r hab. quia ante adprop. k", this would be against NA, which 

has k for both omissions. Jülicher has for k: "Exinde enim coepit Iesus 

praedicare et dicerem: Quia adpropinquavit regnum caelorum." 

Eusebius writes: 

VApo. to,te gou/n h;rxato o` VIhsou/j khru,ssein kai. le,gein o[ti h;ggiken h` 

basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

Victor of Antioch writes: 

"kai. meta. ovli,ga\ avpo. to,te h;rxato o` VIhsou khru,ssein kai. le,gein( 

metanoei/te, h;ggike ga.r ))) but in the following paragraph he says, citing 

Matthew: Kai. avpo. to,te h;rxato khru,ssein kai. le,gein\ ouvci,( to. 

metanoei/te( kai. ta. e`xh/j( a;lla mo,non to,( h;ggiken h` basilei,a tw/n 

ouvranw/nÅ 

Scholion (attributed in one manuscript to Cyrill, in another to Origen, compare 

thesis by Amy Donaldson for details): 

:En tisi to. metanoei/te ouv kei/tai) 

"In some (copies) 'repent' is not present." 

According to Barnard (Biblical Text of Clement Alex. 1899) both Cl and Origen 

omit ga.r. In the critical Klostermann edition of Origen's Mt-Comm. the ga.r is 

present in both quotations. 

Lacuna: Q 

B: no umlaut

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 1:15 kai. le,gwn o[ti peplh,rwtai o` kairo.j kai. h;ggiken h` 

basilei,a tou/ qeou/\ metanoei/te kai. pisteu,ete evn tw/| euvaggeli,w|Å 

Context: 


Îkai.Ð le,gwn\ metanoei/te\ h;ggiken ga.r h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

Is the txt reading a harmonization to 3:2? The support is just too weak to 

consider this seriously. 

Fee analyses the proposed church father support for the omission, but comes to 

the conclusion that in case of Justin and Clement the support is based on an 

argument of silence. Origen cites the verse twice in full, with the word, and 

later he cites it as h;ggiken ... without metanoei/te, because it was unnecessary 

to the focus of the discussion. 

Regarding Eusebius Fee notes the addition of gou/n and o[ti and writes: "This is 

adapted just enough to give doubts as to the Greek text Eusebius actually 

knew." 

Regarding Victor of Antioch Fee notes that this is "his attempt to reconcile 

Matthew with Mark as to what Jesus preached after he went to Capernaum. In 

any case this is the only patristic evidence for the 'omission', and it is flimsy 

indeed." 

In any case, the compiler of the archetype of 1582 provides evidence that there 

were indeed manuscripts, that omitted metanoei/te. 

Compare: 

G.D. Fee "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem" in Epp/Fee 

"Studies in the Theory and Practice of NT TC" S&D 45, p. 177-8 


TVU 30 

9. 


Matthew 4:23 Kai. perih/gen evn o[lh| th/| Galilai,a| 

BYZ Matthew 4:23 Kai. perih/gen o[lhn th,n Galilai,an o` VIhsou/j( 

T&T #10 

1 o[lhn th,n Galilai,an o` VIhsou/j W, D, 0287, f13, Maj, Basil(4 th CE) 

2 o[lhn th,n Galilai,an pc 7 

3 o` VIhsou/j o[lhn th,n Galilai,an 01 C1 , D, f1, 346(=f13), 33, 157, 713, 

4 o` VIhsou/j evn th/| Galilai,a| 01* 

892, 1424, 2786, pc 100 , Lat, Eus 

5 o` VIhsou/j evn o[lh| th/| Galilai,a| C, 279, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, Trg 

txt evn o[lh| th/| Galilai,a| B, L1043, k, Sy-C, sa, mae-1 

A 6 th CE amulet, POxy 1077, supports reading 3. 

Tregelles has o` VIhsou/j in brackets. 

Lacuna: L, Q, 22 

B: no umlaut 

Note next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:24 Kai. avph/lqen h` avkoh. auvtou/ eivj o[lhn th.n Suri,an\ 

D: evn o[lhn th.n Suri,an\ 

01, 157, 983: eivj pa,san th.n Suri,an\ 

G: eivj o[lhn th.n sunori,an\ 

(Blass likes this reading.) 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:26 kai. evxh/lqen h` fh,mh au[th eivj o[lhn th.n gh/n evkei,nhnÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:35 avpe,steilan eivj o[lhn th.n peri,cwron 


Kai. perih/gen o` VIhsou/j ta.j po,leij pa,saj kai. ta.j 


kw,maj 

oi` de. evxelqo,ntej diefh,misan auvto.n evn o[lh| th/| gh/| 

NA 27 evkei,nh|Å 

Matthew 24:14 khrucqh,setai tou/to ... evn o[lh| th/| oivkoume,nh| 

NA 27 Matthew 26:13 o[pou eva.n khrucqh/| ... tou/to evn o[lw| tw/| ko,smw|

NA 27 Mark 1:28 

kai. evxh/lqen h` avkoh. ... 

eivj o[lhn th.n peri,cwron th/j Galilai,ajÅ 

NA 27 Mark 1:39 Kai. h=lqen khru,sswn ... eivj o[lhn th.n Galilai,an 

NA 27 Luke 7:17 kai. evxh/lqen o` lo,goj ou-toj evn o[lh| th/| VIoudai,a| peri. 

auvtou/ kai. pa,sh| th/| pericw,rw|Å 

The support for txt is extremely thin. The current argumentation goes probably 

like this: 01 and B both have the dative. But only 01 has the direct subject 

Jesus. B is supported for the omission of Jesus by k and Sy-C. So, it is more 

probable that the direct subject Jesus has been added later, because in the 

previous verse James and John are the subject. Stemma: 

txt 

4,5 

3 

1 

2 

Even though the accusative (1, 2, 3) is the more usual construction after 

perih/gen, from external support reading 3 is also quite strong. Stemma: 

3 

1 4,5 

2 txt 

Note also that with 4:23 a new pericope begins in the Greek lectionary. 

Also note the next verse 24, where the accusative is safe. Is Matthew using two 

different cases here or only one? 


TVU 31 



NA 27 Matthew 4:24 Kai. avph/lqen h` avkoh. auvtou/ eivj o[lhn th.n Suri,an\ 

kai. prosh,negkan auvtw/| pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj poiki,laij no,soij 

kai. basa,noij sunecome,nouj Îkai.Ð daimonizome,nouj kai. 

selhniazome,nouj kai. paralutikou,j( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou,jÅ 

omit B, C*, f13, 892, pc, Eus, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Bois, Trg, SBL 

txt 01, C C2 , D, W, f1, 33, Maj, L1043, Latt, sa, mae, [Trg mg ] 

bo?, Sy? 

Lacuna: L, Q 

B: no umlaut 

The support for the omission is not coherent. 

There would be no reason for an omission, but for an addition to separate the 

words. 

d) kai. s) kai. p) are only specifications of the poiki,laij no,soij kai. 

basa,noij sunecome,nouj. In modern script a colon would be fitting (so already 

suggested by Weiss): 

"... and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various 

diseases and pains: demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them." 

This sense would give an epexegetic, explicative kai. as "that is, namely". 

Possibly the kai. has been omitted to avoid two different meanings of kai.? 

John MacDonald Ross writes: 

"If the word is retained, the text divides the patients into four categories: 

a) sufferers from physical disease, b) those possessed by demons, c) the moonstruck (including 

epileptics but the word may well be used in a wider sense), d) paralytics. If kai. is omitted there 

is only one category - those suffering from diseases and pain of which b), c) and d) are given as 

examples. Since these last three afflictions are not good examples either of disease or of pain it 

seems much more probable that Matthew intended to distinguish natural afflictions from 

supernatural, and that the kai. was omitted by an early copyist either out of carelessness or 

because he felt that there where too many examples of this word in a cumbrous sentence." 

in: "Further unnoticed points in the text of the NT" NovT 45 (2003) 209-10 


TVU 32 


NA 27 Matthew 5:3 Maka,rioi oi` ptwcoi. tw/| pneu,mati( o[ti auvtw/n evstin h` 

basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 5:4 maka,rioi oi` penqou/ntej( o[ti auvtoi. paraklhqh,sontaiÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 5:5 maka,rioi oi` praei/j( o[ti auvtoi. klhronomh,sousin th.n 

gh/nÅ 

Different verse order: 5:3 - 5:5 - 5:4 

T&T #11 

Ephrem, Aphraates 

Support: D, 33, 17, 130, Lat, Sy-C, Cl, Or, Eus, Diatess 

5-3-4 have: a, c, d, ff 1 , g 1,2 , h, k, l, m, aur 

3-4-5 have: b, f, q 

Ephrem in his commentary on the Diatessaron is citing the verses also in the 

order 3-5-4. Hill (1896) notes, that Aphraates has it also in this order. The 

Arabic Diatessaron has the normal order. 

Scholion attributed to a "Theodore" (Reuss, Fr. Matt. 15): 

Tine.j de, fasin mh. peri. nohth/j tau/ta eivrh/sqai gh/j( avlla. meta. 

tou,twn kavkei/na pare,cwn) tou/ton de. makarismo,n tinej tw/n 

avntigra,fwn tri,ton perie,cousin( deu,teron de. to.n e`xh/j tou,twn 

kei,menon) 

"But some say these things were not spoken concerning a perceptible earth - rather, with the 

latter he presents also the former. But some of the copies have this beatitude third, and second 

the one lying after these things." 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

LXX Psalm 36:11 oi` de. praei/j klhronomh,sousin gh/n kai. 

katatrufh,sousin evpi. plh,qei eivrh,nhj 

It seems that some scribes put verse 5, which speaks of inheriting the "earth", 

next to verse 3 which speaks of possessing the kingdom of "heaven." 

Tregelles (Account.., 1854, p. 187f.) speaks in favor of the order in D et al. 

because of Origen's testimony. 

Zahn notes correctly though that it would be improbable that this antithesis, if 

original, would have been broken up later.

Streeter "Four Gospels" (p. 250 footnote 2) writes: "… it may be an 

interpolation. I incline to agree with Harnack that Mt 5:5 is an interpolation 

from Ps. 36:11, against Dr. Charles, who, in his The Decalogue (Clark, 1923), 

argues that verse 4 is the interpolated verse, through assimilation from Luke." 

Already Wellhausen (1844-1918) was of this view (noted in NA as cj.). Compare: 

Julius Wellhausen "Das Evangelium Matthaei übersetzt und erklärt", Berlin, Reimer, 1904, p. 15 

Further Jan Krans communicates: Bowyer (Critical Conjectures, 1812, p. 62) 

records (Johannes) Piscator's opinion, according to which verses 5 and 6 should 

be inverted. 

That Ephrem in his commentary is citing the verses in this order is significant. 

It is probable that this was the order in his Diatessaron, because he is citing 

the following verses all in the normal order. The question is if it was Tatian who 

reversed the order, or if Tatian found this order in his edition of Matthew. The 

Arabic Diatessaron has the verses in the normal order though. 


TVU 33 

NA 27 Matthew 5:11 maka,rioi, evste o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j kai. diw,xwsin 

kai. ei;pwsin pa/n ponhro.n kaqV u`mw/n Îyeudo,menoiÐ e[neken evmou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 5:11 maka,rioi, evste o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j kai. diw,xwsin 

kai. ei;pwsin pa/n ponhro.n r`h/ma kaq u`mw/n yeudo,menoi e[neken evmou/ 

vg: et dixerint omne malum adversum vos mentientes, propter me. 

and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 

T&T #12 

Byz C, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 892, 1071, Maj, 

q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal ms , mae-1, Or 

txt 01, B, (âD), L1043, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bo, Tert(2 nd CE) 

Lacuna: L, 22 

B: umlaut! (line 40 A, p. 1239) ponhro.n kaqV u`mw/n 

Probably inspired by LXX: 

Deu 17:1 pa/n r`h/ma ponhro,n 

Deu 23:10 panto.j r`h,matoj ponhrou/ 

Jos 23:15 pa,nta ta. r`h,mata ta. ponhra 

also sometimes in the LXX: to. r`h/ma to. ponhro.n 

For D compare also next variant! 




TVU 34 


NA 27 Matthew 5:11 maka,rioi, evste o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j kai. diw,xwsin 

kai. ei;pwsin pa/n ponhro.n kaqV u`mw/n Îyeudo,menoiÐ e[neken evmou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 5:11 maka,rioi, evste o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j kai. diw,xwsin 

kai. ei;pwsin pa/n ponhro.n r`h/ma kaqV u`mw/n yeudo,menoi e[neken evmou/ 

"and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." 

omit yeudo,menoi: D, it(b, c, d, g 1 , h, k), Sy-S, Tert, Or pt , Eus, Aug, Gre, Bois 

Tregelles has yeudo,menoi normal in the text and with brackets in the margin. 

D reads: 

maka,rioi, evste o[tan diw,xousin u`ma/j kai. ovneidi,sousin 

kai. ei;pwsin kaq u`mw/n pa/n ponhro.n e[neken dikaiosu,nhj\ 

d: Beati eritis cum persequentur vos et inproperaverint 

et dixerint adversus vos omne nequam propter iustitiam 

et dixerint adversos vos: d, h, k, m, Tert 

omit yeudo,menoi (mentientes): b, c, d, g 1 , h, k, m, Tert, Aug 

have it: aur, f, ff 1 , l, q, vg 

read dikaiosu,nhj (iustitiam): a, b, c, d, g 1 , (Aug) 

read evmou/ (me): aur, f, ff 1 , h, l, q, vg, Tert 

Sy-C: (Burkitt) 

"and saying concerning you everything evil in a lie for my name's sake." 

Sy-S: (Burkitt) 

"and saying concerning you evil for my name's sake, even mine." 

e[neken evmou/ yeudo,menoi L1043 

Lacuna: L 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 5:10 maka,rioi oi` dediwgme,noi e[neken dikaiosu,nhj( o[ti 

auvtw/n evstin h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/nÅ

Tertullian (Liber Scorpiace, 9): 

Hoc quidem absolute ad omnes; dehinc proprie ad apostolis ipsos: beati eritis, cum 

vos dedecoraverint et persecuti fuerint et dixerint adversus vos omnia mala propter 

me: gaudete et exultate, quoniam merces vestra plurima in caelo. 

Eusebius quotes the verse in his Peri theophaneias (On Divine Manifestation): 

And again, "Blessed are ye when they persecute you, and revile you, and say every 

evil (thing) against you, for my sake." (from the Syriac by Samuel Lee, p. 263). 

Origen quotes the verse twice in his Homilies on Jeremiah. In homily 1 he has it 

with yeudo,menoi and in homily 20 he has it without. 

Homily 20 (Jer 20:7-12): 

maka,rioi, evste o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j kai. diw,xwsi kai. ei;pwsi pa/n 

ponhro.n r`h/ma kaqV u`mw/n e[neken evmou) 

The omission may be accidental. Tischendorf and von Soden cite Origen in favor 

of the omission, too. Miller notes: "In Lev. II, 4 Lat ", so there appear to be other 

positions besides the Homilies on Jeremiah, where Origen cites the short form. 

Difficult. yeudo,menoi could be an addition to enhance the saying. The verb 

appears only here in the Gospels. 

Weiss argues (Textkritik, p. 151) that the word has been omitted, because it 

disturbs the connection of the e[neken evmou/ with the previous words. 

To the contrary Zahn (Com. Mat) thinks that the word has been added to avoid 

abuse of the saying. He prefers the D reading. 

e[neken dikaiosu,nhj is clearly a harmonization to Mt 5:10. Augustinus once in 

his sermons cites it as "propter iustitiam et propter me". It is probable that we 

see here a mixture of verse 10 and 11, perhaps cited from memory. 

Overall, especially in light of the complete rewriting of the verse in D, and the 

harmonistic e[neken dikaiosu,nhj, it appears more probable that we have in D a 

secondary variation, typical for D. The Latins are quite mixed here. Only d 

supports D completely. Also translation freedom may be involved. 


Brackets: Rating: 1? = remove brackets.

TVU 35 

Minority "Caesarean" reading: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:18 avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n\ e[wj a'n pare,lqh| o` ouvrano.j kai. 

h` gh/( ivw/ta e]n h' mi,a kerai,a ouv mh. pare,lqh| avpo. tou/ no,mou Þ ( e[wj 

a'n pa,nta ge,nhtaiÅ 

Þ kai. tw/n profhtw/n 

S, Q, f13, 565, 1071, al, Sy-Pal, arm, arab MS , Ir Lat 

Lacuna: C, 22 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 5:17 Mh. nomi,shte o[ti h=lqon katalu/sai to.n no,mon h' tou.j 

profh,taj\ 

ouvk h=lqon katalu/sai avlla. plhrw/saiÅ 

Clearly a harmonization to immediate context. There is no reason for an 

omission. 


TVU 36 

NA 27 Matthew 5:22 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj tw/| avdelfw/| 

auvtou/ e;nocoj e;stai th/| kri,sei\ 

BYZ Matthew 5:22 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj tw/| avdelfw/| 

auvtou/ eivkh/ e;nocoj e;stai th/| kri,sei\ 

T&T #13 

eivkh/ = "without cause" 

Byz 01 C2-mg , D, K, P, L, W, D, Q, S, 0233, 0287, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

it, Sy, Co, arm, geo, goth, Ir, Eus, [Trg] 

txt P67 vid =P64(200 CE), 01*, B, W, 372, 1424 mg , 2737, al 25 , 

aur, vg, aeth, Justin, Cl, Or, Hier mss , Basil(4 th CE), Trg mg 

P67: This is the last line of the papyrus and only the upper half of the letters 

can be seen, but it is almost certain: auÐtou enocÎoj 

There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here. 

D: According to Tischendorf/Legg D* reads Byz and D C2 reads txt! This is not 

correct. There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here. 

1424: has this marginal comment: 

to. eivkh/ evn tisi.n avntigrafoij ouv kei/tai ouvde. evn tw/| VIoudai?kw/|\ 

(We don't know what "Ioudaikon" refers to, probably a Gospel similar to 

Matthew in Aramaic. Cp. 16:2-3 for another such note.) 

Justin reads (Apol. 16:2): o]j dV a'n ovrgisqh/| e;nocoj evstin eivj to. pu/r\ 

Lacuna: C, 22 

B: umlaut! (line 19 C, page 1239) tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ e;nocoj 

Origen (Comm. Eph.) 

evpei. de, tinej oi;ontai euvlo,gwj pote. gi,nesqai ovrgh,n( mh. kalw/j 

prostiqe,ntej tw/| euvaggeli,w| to. eivkh/ kata. to. r`hto,n o]j a'n ovrgisqh/| tw/| 

avdelfw/| auvtou/ e;nocoj e;stai th/| kri,sei( avne,gnwsan ga,r tinej o]j eva.n 

ovrgisqh/| tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ eivkh/( duswph,swmen auvtouj evk tou/ 

prokeime,nou r`htou/ le,gontoj( pa/sa pikri,a kai. qumo.j kai. ovrgh. kai. 

kraugh. kai. blasfhmi,a avrqh,tw avfV u`mw/n [Eph 4:31]) safw/j ga.r evnqa,de 

h` pa/sa fwnh. kata. koinou/ evpi. pa,ntwn ei;rhtai( w`j mhdemia/j pikri,aj

sugcwroume,nhj mhde. qumou/ tinoj evpitrepome,nou mhde. ovrgh/j tinoj 

euvlo,gwj sunercome,nhj) kai. evn triakostw/| e[ktw| yalmw/|( w`j pa,shj 

ovrgh/j a`marti,aj ou;shj $o`moi,wj de. kai. qumou/%( le,getai pau/sai avpo. 

ovrgh/j kai. evgkata,lipe qumo,n [Ps 36:8]) ouvkou/n ouvk e;stin pote. euvlo,gwj 

ovrgistqh/nai tini) 

Since some think that anger sometimes occurs with good reason because they improperly add to 

the Gospel the word "without cause" in the saying, "Whoever is angry with his brother will be 

liable to judgment", for some have read, "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause" let 

us convince them of their error from the statement under discussion which says, "Let all 

bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and blasphemy be removed from you." For the term 

"all" here clearly applies to all the nouns in common, so that no bitterness is allowed, no wrath is 

permitted, and no anger occurs with good reason. It is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, since all 

anger is sin (and likewise also wrath), "Cease from anger, and leave wrath". It is never possible, 

therefore, to be angry with someone with good reason. 

Jerome (early 5 th CE, Comm. Matt. 5:22) 

Omnis qui irascitur fratri suo. In quibusdam codicibus additur: sine causa. 

Ceterum in ueris definita sententia est et ira penitus tollitur, scriptura dicente: 

Qui irascitur fratri suo. Si enim iubemur uerberanti alteram praebere maxillam 

et inimicos nostros amare et orare pro persequentibus, omnis irae occasio 

tollitur. Radendum est ergo: sine causa, quia ira uiri iustitiam Dei non operator. 

"Everyone who is angry with his brother." In some codices the words are added: "without 

reason." But in the authentic texts the judgment is definite and anger is completely taken away, 

since the Scripture says: "Whoever is angry with his brother." For if we are commanded to turn 

the other cheek to the one who strikes us, and to love our enemies, and to pray for those who 

persecute us, every pretext for anger is removed. Therefore, the words "without reason" should 

be erased. For "man‘s anger does not work the justice of God" [James 1:20]. 

Jerome (ca. 415 CE, Pelag. 2.5): 

Et in eodem Euangelio legimus: Qui irascitur fratri suo sine causa, reus erit 

iudicio, licet in plerisque antiquis codicibus sine causa non additum sit, ut scilicet 

ne cum causa quidem debeamus irasci. Quis hominum potest dicere quod ira, quae 

absque iustitia est, in sempiternum careat? 

And in the same Gospel, we read: "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be 

liable to judgment"; although in many of the ancient copies, the phrase, "without cause" has not 

been added, so that we should not be angry, to be sure, even with cause. What person can claim 

to be free forever from the fault of anger, a fault that is without justice? 

Scholion attributed to Apollinarius (Reuss, Fr. Matt 19): 

eiv de. mh. ei;rhtai eivkh/( w[j tinej bou,lontai mh. ei=nai ))) 

Qeo,dwroj de. kai. Qeo,dwroj paragra,fontai to. eivkh/| w`j ouvk 

eivrhme,non) 

"But if it does not say "without cause", as some wish that it does not … [text missing] 

But Theodore and Theodore [commentators on Mt, 4 th CE] write "without cause" next to the 

text [i.e. in the margin] as not being mentioned."

Pseudo-Athanasius (4 th CE, Epistulae ad Castorem 2): 

Auvto.j de. o` Despo,thj( dida,skwn h`ma/j( o[ti dei/ pa/san ovrgh.n 

avpoti,qesqai( fhsi.n evn toi/j Euvaggeli,oij\ o[ti pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj tw/| 

avdelfw/| auvtou/ e;nocoj e;stai th/| kri,sei) Ou[tw ga.r tw/n avntigra,fwn ta. 

avkribh/ perie,cei\ to. ga.r eivkh/( evk prosqh,khj evte,qh\ kai. tou/to dh/lon 

evk tou/ prokeime,nou lh,mmatoj th/j Grafh/j) 

"But the Lord himself, teaching us that it is necessary to set aside all anger, says in the Gospels, 

'Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.' For this is what the accurate 

copies contain; for 'without cause' was put down as an addition; and this is clear from the 

preceding received text of Scripture." 

Augustine (ca. 425 CE, Retract. 1.19.4): 

Illud etiam melius intelleximus postea quod scriptum est: Qui irascitur fratri 

suo. Codices enim Greci non habent sine causa, sicut hic positum est, quamuis 

idem ipse sit sensus. Illud enim diximus intuendum, quid sit irasci fratri suo, 

quoniam non fratri irascitur, qui peccato fratris irascitur. Qui ergo fratri non 

peccato irascitur, sine causa irascitur. 

"Likewise, at a later time, we had a much better understanding of the text: 'Whosoever is angry 

with his brother.' For the Greek manuscripts do not have "without cause" as is stated here [i.e., 

in some Latin manuscripts], although the meaning is the same. For we said that it is necessary to 

consider what to be angry with one‘s brother means, for one who is angry at the sin of his 

brother is not angry with his brother. He, then, who is angry with his brother, but not because 

of his sin, is angry without cause." 

The word eivkh/ appears only here in the four Gospels, but five times in Paul. 

The txt reading is normally considered the harder reading. But thinking about it, 

this is not clear. If the reader/scribe identifies himself with the pa/j, then 

certainly the addition of "without cause" would be a relief for him, because he 

can now be angry with cause. 

But if the reader identifies himself with tw/| avdelfw/|, then it would be better 

for him that every anger is condemned and not only the one "without cause". 

Zahn thinks that the word has been added for a similar reason as yeudo,menoi in 

verse 11 (to avoid abuse). 

The support for the txt reading is rather slim. 

Compare: 

David A. Black "The text of Mt 5:22a" NovT 30 (1988), 1-8 [he argues for the 

inclusion of eivkh/, but the arguments are not convincing.] 


TVU 37 


NA 27 Matthew 5:22 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj tw/| avdelfw/| 

auvtou/ e;nocoj e;stai th/| kri,sei\ o]j dV a'n ei;ph| tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/\ ràka,( 

e;nocoj e;stai tw/| sunedri,w|\ o]j dV a'n ei;ph| Þ \ mwre,( e;nocoj e;stai eivj 

th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro,jÅ 

Þ tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ L, 0233, Q, f1, f13, 700, 1071, pc, 

ff 1 , Sy-S, Sy-C, bo, arm, geo 

Lacuna: C, 22 

B: no umlaut 

A natural addition from immediate context. 


TVU 38 

NA 27 Matthew 5:25 i;sqi euvnow/n tw/| avntidi,kw| sou tacu,( e[wj o[tou ei= metV 

auvtou/ evn th/| o`dw/| mh,pote, se paradw/ | o` avnti,dikoj tw/| krith/| kai. o` 

krith.j tw/| u`phre,th| kai. eivj fulakh.n blhqh,sh|\ 

BYZ Matthew 5:25 i;sqi euvnow/n tw/| avntidi,kw| sou tacu. e[wj o[tou ei= evn 

th/| o`dw/| met auvtou/ mh,pote, se paradw/| o` avnti,dikoj tw/| krith/| kai. o` 

krith.j se paradw/| tw/| u`phre,th| kai. eivj fulakh.n blhqh,sh|\ 

Byz (D), L, W, D, Q, 0233, 22, 33, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, goth, [Trg] 

txt P67 vid =P64(200 CE), 01, B, 0275, f1, f13, 372, 892, pc, k, arm, Cl 

Sy-S omits kai. o` krith.j tw/| u`phre,th|. 

0275 (7 th CE) is a small fragment, located in Dublin and contains only 4 verses 

from Mt 5. 

P67: Even though the words are not visible, from space considerations it is 

certain that they were not present: 

Îtw kriÐth kai o krÎithjÐ 

Îtw upÐhreth kai eiÎj fuÐ 

ÎlakhnÐ blhqhsh amhÎnÐ 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:58 w`j ga.r u`pa,geij meta. tou/ avntidi,kou sou evpV a;rconta( 

evn th/| o`dw/| do.j evrgasi,an avphlla,cqai avpV auvtou/( mh,pote katasu,rh| se 

pro.j to.n krith,n( kai. o` krith,j se paradw,sei tw/| pra,ktori( kai. o` 

pra,ktwr se balei/ eivj fulakh,nÅ 

Conformation to immediate context and/or harmonization to Lk (so Weiss). 

It is on the other hand possible that the words have been omitted as redundant 

or to improve style. 


TVU 39 


NA 27 Matthew 5:28 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ble,pwn gunai/ka pro.j 

to. evpiqumh/sai auvth.n h;dh evmoi,ceusen auvth.n evn th/| kardi,a| auvtou/Å 

first auvth.n: 

auvth.j 01 C1 , M, S, f1, 22, 346, al, Or 1/4 Apol 15:1 

, Justin 

omit: P67=P64(200 CE), 01*, P, 

Cl, Tert, Or 2/4 , Cyr-Jer(4 th CE), Basil(4 th CE) 2/3 , Tis, Bal 

WH, NA 25 have auvth.n in brackets 

second auvth.n: 

omit: D, P, Or 1/4 Apol 15:1 

, Justin 

Justin reads: 

}Oj a'n emble,yh| gunaiki. pro.j to. evpiqumh/sai auvth/j 

h;dh evmoi,ceusen th/| kardi,a| para. tw/| qew/|\ 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 10:11 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ 

NA 27 Luke 16:18 Pa/j o` avpolu,wn th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kai. gamw/n e`te,ran 

moiceu,ei( kai. o` avpolelume,nhn avpo. avndro.j gamw/n moiceu,eiÅ 

LXX Exodus 20:17 ouvk evpiqumh,seij th.n gunai/ka tou/ plhsi,on sou ouvk 

evpiqumh,seij th.n oivki,an tou/ plhsi,on sou (also Deu 5:21) 

auvth.n is a grammatical problem here, perhaps suggested from the LXX, 

evpiqume,w is normally used with the genitive. So it has either been changed to 

auvth.j or has been omitted completely. 

Weiss argues (Textkritik, p. 147) that 01 omits the accusative pronoun five 

times alone and twice with D, so the weight of 01 is reduced. 


TVU 40 

NA 27 Matthew 5:30 kai. eiv h` dexia, sou cei.r skandali,zei se e;kkoyon 

auvth.n kai. ba,le avpo. sou/\ sumfe,rei ga,r soi i[na avpo,lhtai e]n tw/n 

melw/n sou kai. mh. o[lon to. sw/ma, sou eivj ge,ennan avpe,lqh|Å 

BYZ Matthew 5:30 kai. eiv h` dexia, sou cei.r skandali,zei se e;kkoyon 

auvth.n kai. ba,le avpo. sou/\ sumfe,rei ga,r soi i[na avpo,lhtai e]n tw/n 

melw/n sou kai. mh. o[lon to. sw/ma, sou blhqh/| eivj ge,ennan) 

Byz (L), W, D, Q, 0233, f13, Maj, f, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, goth, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, f1, 22, 33, 157, 517â, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-C, mae-1, bo 

D, pc, d, Sy-S omit the verse probably due to haplography (see below). 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare ending of previous verse 29: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:29 ... to. sw/ma, sou blhqh/| eivj ge,ennanÅ 

D, 700 mg , it, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo: avpe,lqh| eivj ge,ennan 

Other parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:9 blhqh/nai eivj th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro,jÅ 

NA 27 Mark 9:43 ta.j du,o cei/raj e;conta avpelqei/n eivj th.n ge,ennan 

NA 27 Mark 9:45 tou.j du,o po,daj e;conta blhqh/nai eivj th.n ge,ennanÅ 

BYZ Mark 9:47 blhqh/nai eivj th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro.j( 

NA 27 Luke 12:5 evxousi,an evmbalei/n eivj th.n ge,ennanÅ 

The Byzantine reading is probably a harmonization to verse 29. There is no 

reason why the Byzantine reading should have been changed into the txt reading. 

D reads in verse 29: avpe,lqh| eivj ge,ennan. The Byzantine form of verse 30 also 

ends with eivj ge,ennan. Thus it is possible that the omission is accidental and 

would add D as a possible witness to the Byzantine text. On the other hand it is 

also possible that the exemplar of D read (singularly) avpe,lqh| eivj ge,ennan in 

verse 30 as in verse 29. Then D would be rather a witness for txt. 

Regarding the versions one cannot really decide if they read avpe,lqh| eivj 

ge,ennan or eivj ge,ennan avpe,lqh|. Tischendorf has in verse 30 avpe,lqh| eivj 

ge,ennan for Lat. No Greek manuscript reads avpe,lqh| eivj ge,ennan in verse 30. 

Nevertheless it is possible that the Greek ancestors of the Latin and Syriac 

versions read avpe,lqh| eivj ge,ennan in verse 30.

So, the evidence here is not conclusive. The Western omission can be explained 

in two different ways. 

See also discussion in Mk 9:43-47. 


TVU 41 

NA 27 Matthew 5:32 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` avpolu,wn th.n gunai/ka 

auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj poiei/ auvth.n moiceuqh/nai( kai. o]j eva.n 

avpolelume,nhn gamh,sh|( moica/taiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 5:32 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka 

auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj poiei/ auvth.n moica/sqai( kai. o]j eva.n 

avpolelume,nhn gamh,sh| moica/tai 

Only Byz in NA! 

Byz D, 0250, 28, 579, Maj-part[E, G, S, U, V, W], it(a, b, g 1 , h, k), 

Sy-S, Sy-C, sa ms , bo, geo, Or, Basil(4 th CE) 

omit o[ti: d, 346, pc, it 

txt 01, B, K, P, L, M, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 157, 372, 517, 565, 700, 892, 

1071, 1424, Maj-part, 

Lat(aur, c, f, ff 1 , l, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa, arm, goth 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 19:9 le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/taiÅ 

NA 27 Mark 10:11 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ 



Compare also context: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:22 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj 

NA 27 Matthew 5:28 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` ble,pwn gunai/ka 

NA 27 Matthew 5:31 VErre,qh de,\ o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/( 

It is most probable, that the Byzantine text is a conformation to the previous 

verse 31. Additionally the Byzantine text could also be a harmonization to Mt 

19:9 or Mk 10:11. Note that D, it, Sy-S also conform Mt 19:9 back to 5:32: 

For mh. evpi. pornei,a| they have from 5:32 parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj. 

On the other hand, txt could be a harmonization to Lk 16:18 or to previous 

verses 22, 28 (so Zahn, Com. Mat).


TVU 42 



auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj poiei/ auvth.n moiceuqh/nai( 

kai. o]j eva.n avpolelume,nhn gamh,sh|( moica/taiÅ 

omit: D, pc, a, b, d, k, Or mss 

Origen: this is a scholion in manuscript 1507: "in many manuscripts we do 

not find 'the man marrying a divorced woman commits adultery'. " 

txt 01, (B), L, W, Q, 0250, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, Lat?, Sy, Co, goth 

kai. o` avpolelume,nhn gamh,saj moica/tai B, pc 6 , Or, Trg mg 

WH have the words in brackets. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 



BYZ Matthew 19:9 le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai 

kai. o` avpolelume,nhn gamh,saj moica/taiÅ 

Byz P25 (4 th CE), B, C*, W, Z, Q, 078, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, mae-1, WH mg 

gamh,saj B, 700, 892, 1342, Maj 

gamw/n P25, C*, N, W, Y, D, Q, P, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1424 

add avpo. avndro.j 579 (Lk) 

txt 01, C C , D, L, S, 2*, 69, 828, 1241, pc, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-2, Or, WH 

Other parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:11-12 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ 12 kai. eva.n auvth. avpolu,sasa 

to.n a;ndra auvth/j gamh,sh| a;llon moica/taiÅ 



D, 28, pc, Sy omit avpo. avndro.j 

D, a, b omit the clause in both passages 5:32 and 19:9. k is not present in 19:9.

Origen (2 nd CE, Fr. Matt. 104, s. GCS, Or 12.3:59) 

VIste,on de. o[ti evn polloi/j ouvc eu[romen to. o` avpolelume,nhn 

gamh,sh|( moica/taiÅ 

But know that in many [copies] we do not find "the one who marries a divorced woman 

commits adultery". 

Augustine (ca. 420 CE, De conjugiis adulterinis 1.10) 

"It may well be that some of the manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, do not 

have those last words, namely, the one who marries a woman divorced by 

her husband commits adultery, as part of the Lord‘s sermon on the mount. I 

think this is because what this says is implied by the earlier statement, he 

causes her to commit adultery. How can the divorced woman become an 

adulteress without the man who marries her becoming an adulterer?" 

It is possible that the omission is a harmonization to Mt 19:9, where D, a, b also 

omit. It is also possible that the omission is a reflection of local law. 

The support for the omission is not good. Interestingly it is better in 19:9. But 

there it is probably due to a clear case of h.t. (moica/tai - moica/tai). 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 183) thinks that this omission is due to carelessness. It is 

possibly due to h.t. ai – ai. He also thinks (Textkritik, p. 77) that the o` 

gamh,saj is a conformation to the o` avpolu,wn in the same verse. 

Parker (Living text, p. 84) notes that the short form "makes much simpler and 

better sense". The words sound like and afterthought, an addition. But the 

clumsy style may also be a reason for an omission. Metzger: "The omission … may 

be due to pedantic scribes who regarded them as superfluous." 

The reading by B, pc is clearly a harmonization to 19:9. Compare the discussion 

at 19:9. It is probable that the Byzantine reading is the correct text in 19:9. 

Compare: 

Michael Holmes "The Matthean Divorce Passages" JBL 109 (1990) 651-664. 


TVU 43 


NA 27 Matthew 5:39 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n mh. avntisth/nai tw/| ponhrw/|\ avllV 

o[stij se ràpi,zei eivj th.n dexia.n siago,na ÎsouÐ( stre,yon auvtw/| kai. 

th.n a;llhn\ 

BYZ Matthew 5:39 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n mh. avntisth/nai tw/| ponhrw/|\ avll 

o[stij se ràpi,sei evpi, th.n dexia.n sou siago,na stre,yon auvtw/| kai. th.n 

a;llhn\ 

evpi, th.n dexia.n sou siago,na K, P, M, L, D, Q, f13, 579, 700, 1424, 

Maj-part, bo, goth, Gre 

evpi, th.n siago,na sou D, d, k, Sy-S, Sy-C, Aug codd. 

evpi, th.n dexia.n siago,na 01 C2 , f1, 346(=f13), 22, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 

1241, Maj-part, Or, Cyr 

eivj th.n dexia.n siago,na 01*, W, 983, 1689(=f13 c ), pc, Tis, Bal, SBL 

(Legg: S?) 

one of the previous two: a, f, h 

eivj th.n dexia.n siago,na sou B, Eus, 

[NA 25 ], [WH], Bois, Weiss, Trg 

NA 25 , WH have sou in brackets 

in dexteram maxillam tuam aur, b, c, g 1 

in dextera maxilla tua ff 1 , l, vg 

Most Latins (vg + it) have sou, thus they have either the K, P-reading or the B- 

reading. 

The Sahidic in Horner (1910) has a lacuna here. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Note next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:40 kai. tw/| qe,lonti, soi kriqh/nai kai. to.n citw/na, sou 

labei/n( a;fej auvtw/| kai. to. i`ma,tion Þ \ 

Þ sou 01, M, D, 33, 1071, 1241, 1424, pc

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:29 tw/| tu,ptonti, se evpi. th.n siago,na pa,rece kai. th.n a;llhn( 

kai. avpo. tou/ ai;ronto,j sou to. i`ma,tion kai. to.n citw/na mh. kwlu,sh|jÅ 

eivj th.n dexia.n siago,na 01* 

eivj th.n siago,na D, P, W, Q, 700, 892, 2542, pc, Cl, Or 

evpi, th.n dexia.n siago,na E*, 28, 579, 1424 

txt P75 vid , 01 C , A, B, K, P, L, P, R, X, Y, f1, f13, 33, 157, 565, 1071, 

Lat, Sy, Co 

NA: The reading of 01* in NA is in error. NA says dexia.n is inserted 

AFTER siago,na. This is not correct according to Tischendorf's facsimile. 

Interestingly nobody added sou in Lk (this might be an argument for the 

originality of sou in Mt), but quite some omitted dexia.n, as does D in Mt. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has eivj th.n siago,na for Q ! This reading is not 

supported for Mt and only a minority "Western" reading in Lk. 

Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005) has evpi. th.n siago,na sou for Q. 

Harnack has eivj th.n Îdexia.nÐ siago,na ÎsouÐ for Q. (Sprüche Jesu, p. 89). 

Weiss argues (Textkritik, p. 141) that the sou fell out after se. 

Regarding evpi,/eivj: In the LXX evpi. th.n siago,na appears eight times and 

seven with evpi. (1 Ki 22:24; 2 Chr 18:23; Hos 11:4; Lam 1:2; Job 21:5; Sir 35:15; 

Mic 4:14), once with eivj (Job 16:10). 

The term dexia.n siago,na appears only here in the Greek Bible. 


TVU 44 



NA 27 Matthew 5:41 kai. o[stij se avggareu,sei mi,lion e[n( u[page metV auvtou/ 

du,oÅ 42 tw/| aivtou/nti, se do,j( 

u[page metV auvtou/ e;ti a;lla du,o D, it(a, b, c, d, g 1 , k), vg Cl , Sy-S 

u[page metV auvtou/ a;lla du,o it(aur, ff 1 , l), vg, Sy-C, Ir Lat 

vade cum illo adhuc alia duo 

Of the Latins only f, vg read txt. 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut (p. 1240, line B 33) u[page metV auvtou/ du,oÅ 

txt "and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two." 

D: "and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him another two." 

a;lla a;lloj "another, other" 

avlla. avlla, "but, rather, on the contrary" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:39 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n mh. avntisth/nai tw/| ponhrw/|\ avllV 

o[stij se ràpi,zei eivj th.n dexia.n siago,na ÎsouÐ( stre,yon auvtw/| kai. 

th.n a;llhn\ 

NA 27 Matthew 5:40 kai. tw/| qe,lonti, soi kriqh/nai kai. to.n citw/na, sou 

labei/n( a;fej auvtw/| kai. to. i`ma,tion\ 

Didache 1:4 eva.n avggareu,sh| se, tij mi,lion e[n( u[page metV auvtou/ du,o\ 

The term e;ti avlla. does not appear in the NT. The variation is strange, there is 

no apparent reason for it. 

Zahn notes (Com. Mat.) that possibly it is a conformation to the previous verses, 

where also what Jesus commands is only the additional offering, not the sum. 

Compare: 

39 But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 

40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak also; 

41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him another two. 

It should be noted that in Greek there is an ambiguity regarding alla. It 

can be the adjective "another" or the conjunction "but". The versions interpret 

it as "another".


TVU 45 

NA 27 Matthew 5:44 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n\ avgapa/te tou.j evcqrou.j u`mw/n 

kai. proseu,cesqe u`pe.r tw/n diwko,ntwn u`ma/j( 

BYZ Matthew 5:44 evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n avgapa/te tou.j evcqrou.j u`mw/n 

euvlogeite tou.j katarwme,nouj u`ma/j kalw/j poiei/te toi/j misou/sin 

u`ma/j( kai. proseu,cesqe u`pe.r tw/n evphreazo,ntwn u`ma/j( kai. diwko,ntwn 

u`ma/j( 

T&T #14+15 

Byz D, L, W, D, Q, S, 047, f13, 33, 118S, 700, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, mae-1, goth, Cl, Eus 

txt 01, B, f1, 22, 279, 660*, 1192, 2786*, k, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bo, mae-2, 

Ir Lat , Or, Cyp 

Peter of Laodicea (7 th CE?, Comm. Matt): 

to. de. euvlogeite tou.j katarwme,nouj u`ma/j kai. proseu,cesqe u`pe.r tw/n 

evphreazo,ntwn u`ma/j( kai. diwko,ntwn u`ma/j( evn a;lloij ouv kei/tai) 

But "bless those who curse you" and "pray for those who spite you and persecute you" is not 

present in other copies. 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut! (line 1 C, p. 1240) u`mw/n kai. proseu,cesqe 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:27-28 VAlla. u`mi/n le,gw toi/j avkou,ousin\ avgapa/te tou.j 

evcqrou.j u`mw/n( kalw/j poiei/te toi/j misou/sin u`ma/j( 28 euvlogei/te tou.j 

katarwme,nouj u`ma/j( proseu,cesqe peri. tw/n evphreazo,ntwn u`ma/jÅ 

Harmonization to Lk (so Weiss). There is no reason for an omission. 


TVU 46 

NA 27 Matthew 5:47 kai. eva.n avspa,shsqe tou.j avdelfou.j u`mw/n mo,non( ti, 

perisso.n poiei/teÈ ouvci. kai. oi` evqnikoi. to. auvto. poiou/sinÈ 

BYZ Matthew 5:47 kai. eva.n avspa,shsqe tou.j fi.louj u`mw/n mo,non ti, 

perisso.n poiei/te ouvci. kai. oi` telw/nai ou[twj poiou/sin 

T&T #16 (evqnikoi.) 

avdelfou.j/fi.louj 

Byz L, W, D, Q, 33, Maj, f, h, Sy-H, goth, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, f13, 22, 372, 472, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2) 

B: umlaut! (line 16 C, p. 1240) avdelfou.j u`mw/n mo,non( ti, 

evqnikoi./telw/nai 

Byz L, W, D, Q, f13, 157, 565, 700, Maj, h, Sy-P, goth 

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, 174(=f13), 22, 33, 279, 372, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, 

2680, 2786, al 90 , Lat, Sy-C, Sy-H, Co(+ mae-2), Basil(4 th CE) 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut! (line 18 C, p. 1240) ouvci. kai. oi` evqnikoi. to. auvto. 

f13, Sy-P: avdelfou.j / telw/nai 

33, Basil(4 th CE): fi.louj / evqnikoi. 

omit verse: k, Sy-S (prob. h.t.) 

174(=f13) adds after verse 47: 

kai. eva.n avspa,shsqe tou.j fi.louj u`mw/n mo,non ti, perisso.n poiei/te 

ouvci. kai. oi` evqnikoi. ou[twj poiou/sinÈ 

788 adds after verse 47: 

kai. eva.n avspa,shsqe tou.j fi.louj u`mw/n mo,non ti, perisso.n poiei/te 

ouvci. kai. oi` telw/nai to. auvto poiou/sinÈ 

Compare verse 46 

NA 27 Matthew 5:46 eva.n ga.r avgaph,shte tou.j avgapw/ntaj u`ma/j( ti,na 

misqo.n e;ceteÈ ouvci. kai. oi` telw/nai to. auvto. poiou/sinÈ

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:32 kai. eiv avgapa/te tou.j avgapw/ntaj u`ma/j( poi,a u`mi/n ca,rij 

evsti,nÈ kai. ga.r oi` a`martwloi. tou.j avgapw/ntaj auvtou.j avgapw/sinÅ 

NA 27 Luke 6:33 kai. Îga.rÐ eva.n avgaqopoih/te tou.j avgaqopoiou/ntaj u`ma/j( 

poi,a u`mi/n ca,rij evsti,nÈ kai. oi` a`martwloi. to. auvto. poiou/sinÅ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 16:20 avspa,zontai u`ma/j oi` avdelfoi. pa,ntejÅ 

NA 27 1 Thessalonians 5:26 VAspa,sasqe tou.j avdelfou.j 

NA 27 Titus 3:15 a;spasai tou.j filou/ntaj h`ma/j evn pi,steiÅ 

NA 27 3 John 1:15 avspa,zontai, se oi` fi,loiÅ avspa,zou tou.j fi,louj 

katV o;nomaÅ 

fi.louj fits better to verse 46, also telw/nai is a harmonization to verse 46. 

The readings of 33 and f13 (and especially 174 and 788) are probably due to 

incomplete corrections. 


TVU 47 

NA 27 Matthew 6:1 Prose,cete Îde.Ð th.n dikaiosu,nhn u`mw/n mh. poiei/n 

e;mprosqen tw/n avnqrw,pwn pro.j to. qeaqh/nai auvtoi/j\ eiv de. mh, ge( 

misqo.n ouvk e;cete para. tw/| patri. u`mw/n tw/| evn toi/j ouvranoi/jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:1 Prose,cete th.n evlehmosu,nhn u`mw/n mh. poiei/n 

e;mprosqen tw/n avnqrw,pwn pro.j to. qeaqh/nai auvtoi/j\ eiv de. mh,ge( 

misqo.n ouvk e;cete para. tw/| patri. u`mw/n tw/| evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Byz L, W, Z, D, Q, f13, 22, 33, Maj, f, k, Sy-P, Sy-H, 

arm, mae-1 (mae-2 lacuna), goth, Did, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01* ,C1b , B, D, 0250, f1, 372, 892, 1424*, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, Or 

do,sin 01 C1a , Sy-C, bo, Diatess Ephrem (do,seij, pl.) 

Horner, bo: "gift". The Sahidic in Horner (1910) has a lacuna. 

Acc. to Legg sa reads "vid" also do,sin. 

Ephrem: This is given in Burkitt (Sy-C). I couldn't find it in 

McCarthy. 

omit de.: B, D, W, D, 0250, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-C, mae, bo mss , Trg 

txt 01, L, Z, Q, f1, 33, 892, 1241, 1424, al, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, Trg mg 

1424: The letters before -osu,nhn are washed out and evlehm is written above it. 

Of the original nothing is left, but it is probable that originally dikaiosu,nhn 

had been written. 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut! (line 23 C, p. 1240) Prose,cete Îde.Ð th.n dikaiosu,nhn 

Compare next verses: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:2 {Otan ou=n poih/|j evlehmosu,nhn( 

NA 27 Matthew 6:3 sou/ de. poiou/ntoj evlehmosu,nhn 

NA 27 Matthew 6:4 o[pwj h=| sou h` evlehmosu,nh evn tw/| kruptw/|\ 

But compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:20 Le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti eva.n mh. perisseu,sh| u`mw/n h` 

dikaiosu,nh plei/on tw/n grammate,wn kai. Farisai,wn( ouv mh. eivse,lqhte 

eivj th.n basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/nÅ 

evlehmosu,nh appears here for the first time in Mt. dikaiosu,nh already 

appeared 4 times before: Mt 3:15; 5:6, 5:10, 5:20.

It seems more probable that the general term, dikaiosu,nh, has been replaced 

by the specific evlehmosu,nh from the immediately following context. This is 

supported by the fact that in 01 dikaiosu,nh has been corrected into do,sin. 

Three specimens of the Pharisaic "righteousness" are given in the next verses 

(alms 6:2-4, prayer 6:5-15, fasting 6:16-18). dikaiosu,nh is therefore the 

correct, general heading for the following examples. 

It has been suggested by Zahn that the different words represent one and the 

same Aramaic original. 

Compare: 

Walter Nagel "Gerechtigkeit – oder Almosen? (Mt 6:1)" VC 15 (1961) 141-45 

He argues for evlehmosu,nhn and says that the Bohairic has "charity" 

and not do,sin. He further notes that the word in the Arabic 

Diatessaron, "alms", is also in the plural, as is "gifts" in Ephrem. But 

probably "alms" and "gifts" etc. are just translation freedom. 


TVU 48 

NA 27 Matthew 6:4 o[pwj h=| sou h` evlehmosu,nh evn tw/| kruptw/|\ kai. o` path,r 

sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soi Å 


o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| au`to.j avpodw,sei soi evn tw/| fanerw/| 

T&T #17 

au`to.j 

Byz D, W, D, 565, 579, 700, Maj, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, L, U, Z, Q, 047, 0250, f1, f13, 22, 33, 279, 892, 1192, 1424, 2786, 

Lat, Sy-C, Sy-S, Co, arm, goth, Or 

evn tw/| fanerw/| 

Byz L, W, D, Q, 0250, f13 a,b , 579, 700, 892, 1424, Maj 1400 , 

it, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, arm, goth, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, 983, 1689(=f13 c ), 22, 33, 1192, 2786, al 75 , 

aur, ff 1 , k, vg, Sy-C, Co, Or 

au`to.j avpodw,sei soi D, pc 3 

avpodw,sei soi evn tw/| fanerw/| L, U, Q, 047, 0250, f13 a,b , 157, 

892, 1424, arab MS 

au`to.j avpodw,sei soi evn tw/| fanerw/| W, 565, 579, (700), Maj 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

mae-2: Schenke reconstructs: 

i[na h` evlehmosu,nh u`mw/n evn tw/| kruptw/|\ kai. o` path,r sou ble,pei se 

evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soi th.n antimisqi,an auvtw/n 

so that your (plural!) alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees you 

in secret will reward you their (plural!) recompense. 

Augustine (De sermone Domini in monte 2.9): 

Multa latina exemplaria sic habent: Et Pater tuus, qui videt in abscondito, reddet 

tibi palam. Sed quia in graecis, quae priora sunt, non invenimus palam, non 

putavimus hinc esse aliquid disserendum. 

Many Latin copies have this reading: "And your Father who sees in secret will reward you 

publicly." But because we have not found the word "publicly" in the Greek copies, which are 

earlier, we have not thought that anything needed to be said about it here.

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:18 evn tw/| krufai,w| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

evn tw/| krufai,w| avpodw,sei soi evn tw/| fanerw/ 

E, D, 0233, 2, 118, 157, 579, 1071, 1241, pc, it 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 4:22 ouv ga,r evstin krupto.n eva.n mh. i[na fanerwqh/|( 

ouvde. evge,neto avpo,krufon avllV i[na e;lqh| eivj fanero,nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 8:17 ouv ga,r evstin krupto.n o] ouv fanero.n genh,setai 

ouvde. avpo,krufon o] ouv mh. gnwsqh/| kai. eivj fanero.n e;lqh|Å 

See also same variant verse 6:6. 

au`to.j is an intensifying addition (so Weiss). Zahn (Com. Mat.) thinks that both 

additions have been added to avoid the possible connection of evn tw/| kruptw/| 

with avpodw,sei soi. 

According to Augustine (Serm. Dom. 2.2.9), the addition of evn tw/| fanerw/| was 

common in Latin manuscripts, but not in Greek. 




TVU 49 

NA 27 Matthew 6:5 Kai. o[tan proseu,chsqe( ouvk e;sesqe w`j oi` u`pokritai,( 

BYZ Matthew 6:5 Kai. o[tan proseu,ch|( ouvk e;sh| w[sper oi` u`pokritai, 

Byz 01*, D, L, W, D, Q, f13, 33, Maj, k, q, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt 01 C2 , B, Z, f1, 22, 372, 892, 

Lat, Sy-H mg , Sy-Pal, Co, arm mss , goth, Or 

omit verse: Sy-S 

e;sesqe w[sper X Comm , f1, 1071 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut (p. 1247, line A7) Kai. o[tan proseu,chsqe 


NA 27 Matthew 6:3 sou/ de. poiou/ntoj evlehmosu,nhn mh. gnw,tw h` avristera, 

sou ti, poiei/ h` dexia, sou( 4 o[pwj h=| sou h` evlehmosu,nh evn tw/| 

kruptw/|\ kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 6:6 su. de. o[tan proseu,ch|( ei;selqe eivj to. tamei/o,n sou kai. 

klei,saj th.n qu,ran sou pro,seuxai tw/| patri, sou tw/| evn tw/| kruptw/|\ 

kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 6:7 Proseuco,menoi de. mh. battalogh,shte w[sper oi` 

evqnikoi,( 

The previous verses and the following verse are in the second person singular. 

Thus it is most probable that the singular is a conformation to the context. 

From verse 7 on it is plural again. 




TVU 50 


NA 27 Matthew 6:6 su. de. o[tan proseu,ch|( ei;selqe eivj to. tamei/o,n sou kai. 

klei,saj th.n qu,ran sou pro,seuxai tw/| patri, sou tw/| evn tw/| kruptw/|\ 

kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

Not in NA, but in SQE! 

evn tw/| kruptw D, f1, f13, 700, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C, arab MS , bo pt 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Change in meaning: 

"shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret." 

"shut the door and pray to your Father in secret." 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:4 o[pwj h=| sou h` evlehmosu,nh evn tw/| kruptw/|\ 

sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

kai. o` path,r 

NA 27 Matthew 6:18 o[pwj mh. fanh/|j toi/j avnqrw,poij nhsteu,wn avlla. tw/| 

patri, sou tw/| evn tw/| krufai,w|\ kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| 

krufai,w| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

The txt reading is more difficult. There is no reason for the addition of the 

article, to the contrary, it is probable that the article has been removed to 

conform the saying to immediate context. 

In verse 4 you should give your alms in secret. In context it would be more 

consistent then to also do the praying in secret. Burkitt writes (Evangelion 

Intro, p. 247): 

"The use of tw/| evn tw/| krufai,w| in Mt 6:18 instead of evn tw/| kruptw (as 

here), when the Evangelist wishes to indicate 'the father who is in secret' 

makes it not unlikely that the article has been wrongly inserted by most texts in 

verse 6." 


TVU 51 

NA 27 Matthew 6:6 o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:6 o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soi evn tw/| fanerw/ 

T&T #18 

Byz L, W, D, Q, f13, 33, 892, Maj, it, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal mss , arm, goth 

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, 22, 1192, 2786*, al 20 , aur, ff 1 , k, vg, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co, Or, Eus 

mae-2: Schenke reconstructs: avpodw,sei soi auvtou,jÅ 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

See same variant in verse 4! 




TVU 52 



NA 27 Matthew 6:8 oi=den ga.r o` path.r u`mw/n w-n crei,an e;cete pro. tou/ 

u`ma/j aivth/sai auvto,nÅ 

o` qeo,j o` path.r u`mw/n 01 C1 , B, sa, mae-1, Weiss 

NA 25 , WH [both have o` qeo,j in brackets] 

omit: mae-2 

txt 01*, D, L, W, Z, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892*, Maj, 

Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, bo, goth, Or pt 

o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj 047, 28, 892 C , 1424, pc, Sy-H, Or pt 

(immediate context: 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32) 

892: The words have been added in the margin, with an triple dot insertion sign. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:32 oi=den ga.r o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj o[ti crh,|zete 

tou,twn a`pa,ntwnÅ 

oi=den ga.r o` qeo,j o` path.r u`mw/n 01* ! 

LXX Genesis 3:5 h;|dei ga.r o` qeo.j o[ti evn h-| a'n h`me,ra| fa,ghte avpV auvtou/ 


NA 27 Matthew 6:4 kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn ... 

NA 27 Matthew 6:6 kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn ... 

The insertion of o` qeo,j is strange. This term has no parallel. Possibly liturgical? 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 127) thinks that the B reading must be original: "The very 

unusual [construction] must be original and has been changed to the simple form 

from verses 6:4 and 6:6. That 01 inserts o` qeo,j also in 6:32 (where it is 

inappropriate in light of the following o` ouvra,nioj) only shows that he read it in 

6:8."




TVU 53 


NA 27 Matthew 6:8 oi=den ga.r o` path.r u`mw/n w-n crei,an e;cete pro. tou/ 

u`ma/j aivth/sai auvto,nÅ 

avnoi/xe to. sto,ma D, h (d fehlt) 

os aperiatis 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Nestle says, that this sounds original and has been corrected by the 

diorqwth,j. 

But compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:2 kai. avnoi,xaj to. sto,ma auvtou/ evdi,dasken auvtou.j le,gwn\ 

The words are possibly inspired from 5:2. 


TVU 54 


NA 27 Matthew 6:11 to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion 

"of every day, daily" it, vg mss 

(lat. cottidianum) 

"which comes" sa 

"necessary to support life" vg 

(lat. supersubstantialem) 

"continual, perpetual" Sy-C (Sy-S has a lacuna) 

"needed, necessary" Sy-P, Sy-H 

"for tomorrow" mae-1+2, bo, Gospel of the Hebrews 

evpau,rion according to Jerome 

("the next day" Hebrew: "mahar") 

B: no umlaut 

do.j h`mi/n sh,meron\ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:3 to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion di,dou h`mi/n to. kaqV 

h`me,ran\ 

Entry from BDAG (3 rd ed. 2000): 

evpiou,sioj, on according to Origen, De Orat. 27, 7, coined by the evangelists. Grave doubt is cast 

on the one possible occurrence of ev. which is independent of our lit. (Sb 5224, 20), by BMetzger, 

How Many Times Does ev. Occur Outside the Lord’s Prayer?: ET 69, ’57/58, 52-54=Historical and 

Literary Studies, ’68, 64-66; it seems likely that Origen was right after all. Found in our lit. only 

w. a;rtoj in the Lord’s Prayer Mt 6:11; Lk 11:3; D 8:2. Variously interpreted: Sin. Syr. (on Lk) and 

Cur. Syr. anyma continual (DHadidian, NTS 5, ’58/59, 75-81); Peshitta nqnwsd for our need; Itala 

‘panis quotidianus’, ‘daily bread’; Jerome ‘panis supersubstantialis’ (on this JHennig, TS 4, ’43, 

445-54); GHb 62, 42 rxm = Lat. ‘crastinus’ for tomorrow. Of modern interpretations the 

following are worth mentioning: 

1. deriving it fr. evpi. and ouvsi,a necessary for existence (in agreement w. Origen, Chrysostom, 

and Jerome are e.g. Beza, Tholuck, HEwald, Bleek, Weizsäcker, BWeiss, HCremer; Billerb. I 420; 

CRogge, PhilolWoch 47, 1927, 1129-35; FHauck, ZNW 33, ’34, 199-202; RWright, CQR 157, ’56, 

340-45; HBourgoin, Biblica 60, ’79, 91-96; Betz, SM p. 398f, with provisional support). 

2. a substantivizing of evpi. th.n ou=san sc. h`me,ran for the current day, for today (cp. Thu. 1, 2, 2 

th/j kaqV h`me,ran avnagkai,ou trofh/j; Vi. Aesopi W. 110 p. 102 P. to.n kaqhmerino.n zh,tei 

proslamba,nein a;rton kai. eivj th.n au;rion avpoqhsau,rize. Cp. Pind., O. 1, 99.—Acc. to Artem. 1, 

5 p. 12, 26-28 one loaf of bread is the requirement for one day. S. evfh,meroj.)—ADebrunner, 

Glotta 4, 1912, 249-53; 13, 1924, 167-71, SchTZ 31, 1914, 38-41, Kirchenfreund 59, 1925, 446-8,

ThBl 8, 1929, 212f, B-D-F §123, 1; 124, PhilolWoch 51, ’31, 1277f (but s. CSheward, ET 52 

’40/41, 119f).—AThumb, Griechische Grammatik 1913, 675; ESchwyzer II 473, 2. 

3. for the following day fr. h` evpiou/sa sc. h`me,ra (cp. schol. Pind., N. 3, 38 nu/n me.n w`j h[rwa, th/| 

de. evpiou,sh w`j qeo,n=today viewed as a hero, on the morrow a god; s. e;peimi): Grotius, Wettstein; 

Lghtf., On a Fresh Revision of the English NT 3 1891, 217-60; Zahn, JWeiss; Harnack, SBBerlAk 

1904, 208; EKlostermann; Mlt-H. p. 313f; PSchmiedel: W-S. §16, 3b note 23, SchTZ 30, 1913, 

204-20; 31, 1914, 41-69; 32, 1915, 80; 122-33, PM 1914, 358-64, PhilolWoch 48, 1928, 1530-36, 

ThBl 8, 1929, 258f; ADeissmann, Heinrici Festschr. 1914, 115-19, RSeeberg Festschr. 1929, I 

299-306, The NT in the Light of Modern Research, 1929, 84-86; AFridrichsen, SymbOsl 2, 

1924, 31-41 (GRudberg ibid. 42; 3, 1925, 76); 9, 1930, 62-68; OHoltzmann; ASteinmann, D. 

Bergpredigt 1926, 104f; FPölzl-TInnitzer, Mt 4 ’32, 129f; SKauchtschischwili, PhilolWoch 50, 

1930, 1166-68.—FStiebitz, ibid. 47, 1927, 889-92, w. ref. to Lat. ‘diaria’=the daily ration of food, 

given out for the next day; someth. like: give us today our daily portion—acc. to FDölger, AC 5, 

’36, 201-10, one loaf of bread (likew. WCrönert, Gnomon 4, 1928, 89 n. 1). S. also s.v. sh,meron. 

4. deriving it fr. evpie,nai ‘be coming’ 

a. on the analogy of to. evpio,n=‘the future’, bread for the future; so Cyrillus of Alex. and Peter of 

Laodicea; among the moderns, who attach var. mngs. to it, esp. ASeeberg, D. 4te Bitte des V.-U., 

Rektoratsrede Rostock 1914, Heinrici Festschr. 1914, 109; s. LBrun, Harnack-Ehrung 1921, 22f. 

b. in the mng. ‘come to’: give us this day the bread that comes to it, i.e. belongs to it; so 

KHolzinger, PhilolWoch 51, ’31, 825-30; 857-63; 52, ’32, 383f. 

c. equal to evpiw,n=next acc. to TShearman, JBL 53,’34, 110-17. 

d. the bread which comes upon (us) viz. from the Father, so AHultgren, ATR 72, ’90, 41-54. 

e. The petition is referred to the coming Kingdom and its feast by: REisler, ZNW 24, 1925, 190- 

92; JSchousboe, RHR 48, 1927, 233-37; ASchweitzer, D. Mystik des Ap. Pls 1930, 233-35; 

JJeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender 1930, 52; ELittmann, ZNW 34, ’35, 29; cp. EDelebecque, 

Études grecques sur l’évangile de Luc ’76, 167-81.—S. also GLoeschcke, D. Vaterunser-Erklärung 

des Theophilus v. Antioch. 1908; GWalther, Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. griech. Vaterunser- 

Exegese 1914; DVölter, PM 18, 1914, 274ff; 19, 1915, 20ff, NThT 4, 1915, 123ff; ABolliger, 

SchTZ 30, 1913, 276-85; GKuhn, ibid. 31, 1914, 33ff; 36, 1919, 191ff; EvDobschütz, HTR 7, 1914, 

293-321; RWimmerer, Glotta 12, 1922, 68-82; EOwen, JTS 35, ’34, 376-80; JHensler, D. 

Vaterunser 1914; JSickenberger, Uns. ausreichendes Brot gib uns heute 1923; PFiebig, D. 

Vaterunser 1927, 81-83; GDalman, Worte 2 1930, 321-34; HHuber, D. Bergpredigt ’32; 

GBonaccorsi, Primi saggi di filologia neotest. I ’33, 61-63; 533-39; JHerrmann, D. atl. Urgrund 

des Vaterunsers: OProcksch Festchr. ’34, 71-98; MBlack, JTS 42, ’41, 186-89, An Aramaic 

Approach 3 , ’67, 203-7, 299f, n. 3; SMowinckel, Artos epiousios: NorTT 40, ’42, 247-55; 

ELohmeyer, D. Vaterunser erkl. ’46.—Lit.: JCarmignac, Recherches sur le ‘Notre Père’, ’69; 

CHemer, JSNT 22, ’84, 81-94; Betz, SM 396-400.—M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

Chrys Caragounis is of the opinion that entry 1 is correct, i.e. it is derived from 

evpi. and ouvsi,a. He concludes: 

"The most recent Neohellenic translation (in Demotic) has captured well 

the meaning of the phrase by rendering with to.n avparai,thto gia. th. zwh, 

maj a;rto ("the bread that is indispensable [i.e. necessary] for our life"). 

This I hold to be the most natural rendering of the meaning of evpiou,sioj." 

Origen: Peri. euvch/j (De Oratione), 27.7 

Full article: http://www.chrys-caragounis.com/Studies/Our_Daily_Bread.pdf 

ti, de. kai. to. evpiou,sion( h;dh katanohte,on) prw/ton de. tou/to ivste,on( 

o[ti h` le,xij h` evpiou,sion parV᾽ ouvdeni. tw/n ~Ellh,nwn ou;te tw/n sofw/n 

wvno,mastai ou;te evn th/| tw/n ivdiwtw/n sunhqei,a| te,triptai( avllV᾽ e;oike 

pepla,sqai u`po. tw/n euvaggelistw/n) 

"What this evpiou,sion, too, means must be already understood. First, it must be clear that 

the word evpiou,sion never occurs in any Greek; neither is it mentioned by any learned 

author nor is it common in the speech of the uneducated, but seems to have been created 

by the evangelists." 

ti,j ga,r pote ~Ellh,nwn evcrh,sato th/| evnwti,zou proshgori,a| h' th/| 

avkouti,sqhti avnti. tou/ eivj ta. w=ta de,xai kai. avkou/sai poi,ei s@e#( 

ivsomoi,a th/| evpiou,sion proshgori,a| evsti. para. Mwu?sei/ gegramme,nh( 

u`po. qeou/ eivrhme,nh\ u`mei/j de. e;sesqe, moi lao.j periou,sioj) kai. dokei/ 

moi e`kate,ra le,xij para. th.n ouvsi,an pepoih/sqai( h` me.n to.n eivj th.n 

ouvsi,an sumballo,menon a;rton dhlou/sa( h` de. to.n peri. th.n ouvsi,an 

katagino,menon lao.n kai. koinwnou/nta auvth/| shmai,nousa) 

"For, which of the Greek authors ever used the address evnwti,zou or avkouti,sqhti instead 

of eivj ta. w=ta de,xai and avkou/sai poi,ei s@e#? Equivalent to the address evpiou,sion is the 

one written in Moses and uttered by God: "you are to be to me a lao.j periou,sioj". And it 

seems to me that each word is created around the element of ouvsi,an, the one word 

indicating the bread that contributes to subsistence, the other word designating the 

people that is occupied with substance (life) and partakes of it)." 

"Thus, then, Origen derived the word from ouvsi,a 'substance'. He understood it 

as 'necessary for life' and explained its derivation from ouvsi,a (evpi, + ouvsi,a) by 

analogy to the similarly formed word περιούσιος (peri, + ouvsi,a). Origen 

understood the evpiou,sion a;rton both as material bread for the nourishment 

of the body and as spiritual bread for the nourishment of the soul, on account of 

its congenitality with the relevant substance, and hence it was regarded as 

"necessary" for its nourishment/subsistence: avnagkai/on suggenh/ tw/| a;rtw| th.n 

ouvsi,an ei=nai noei/n\ ("it is necessary to understand that substance is congenital 

to bread")."

This is not really a textcritical question, but a translational one. 

Compare: 

• A. Pallis (Notes, 1932), [from evpio,nta] 

• T. Shearman "Our daily bread" JBL 53 (1934) 110-17 

• M. Black "The Aramaic of to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion" JTS 42 

(1941) 186-9 

• B. Metzger "How many times does evpiou,sioj occur outside the Lord’s 

Prayer?" ET 69 (1957/58) 52-54 = Historical and Literary Studies 68, 64- 

66 

• D.Y. Hadidian "The meaning of evpiou,sioj and the Codices Sergii" NTS 5 

(1958/59) 75-81 [he writes: "Perhaps … one can make the assertion … that 

'the oldest tradition' represented by Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac and 

Acts of Thomas have the right meaning of the Greek word evpiou,sioj. It 

should read: 'Set before us this day (or each day) the bread of 

continuity.' "] 

• M. Nijman AND K. A. Worp "EPIOUSIOS in a documentary papyrus?" 

NovT 41 (1999) 231-234, Marjan Nijman wrote (Bgreek, June 2005): 

"In 1998 I finished my studies in the department of Theology and Religious Studies of the faculty of 

Humanities at the University of Amsterdam with an Extended Essay in the area of New Testament. 

The topic was the daily bread in the Lords Prayer. My supervisor Prof. Dr. J. W. van Henten sent me 

on 6 May 1998 to ''our neighbour '' at the department of Papyrology of the archeological and historical 

institute Dr. K. A. Worp to check the facts on the ''missing papyrus'' because the literature I found was 

very old. We couldn't find any new facts and concluded it was still missing. Dr. Worp however 

suggested to contact Dr. W. E. H. Cockle of the department of Greek and Latin of University College 

London. I wrote a letter to ask whether SB1,5224 = Flinders Petrie Hawara p. 34 was still missing. At 

13 May 1998 he wrote me a letter on the Hawara papyri but the letter said this papyrus was never in 

London. He continues ''However in fact you are in luck! In 1985 Dr. Susan S. Stephens published Yale 

papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library II, (American Studies in Papyrology, Volume 

24) Scholars Press, Chico, California. I have noted that on pages XV-XXXII is printed a Bbibliography 

of published Yale Papyri by Inventory Number. On p.XVI Yale Papyrus Inventory number 19 is said to 

be P. Hawara 245...From my own experience of the other Hawara Papyri I can confirm that the Rev. 

Professor A.H. Sayce, who published the editio princeps of this text, was not a very accurate 

transcriber, so it would indeed be desireable to check whether epiousion can in fact be read. I have 

my doubts.'' I had to finish my studies before september and thought it would take too much time (and 

money) to order a photo of the papyrus. But I was in luck a second time! For Dr. Worp told me he had 

received an e-mail from Yale that morning. Professor B. Porten an Arameicus from Israel was in Yale. 

Dr. Worp asked him by e-mail whether it was possible for him to go to the Beinecke Library to take a 

look. He was so kind to do it. and provided us with a xerox of papyrus P.C.+YBR inv 19. On 15 June 

1998 he wrote an e-mail to tell that he and Professor A. Crislip had made a xerox and posted it. They 

couldn't find the word epiousi.. in the papyrus. They read the complete word elaiou (oil). When 

we received the xerox Dr. Worp told me that the word in the papyrus was indeed elaiou. He also 

said the papyrus was definitely from the first or second century CE and not from the fifth century CE. 

Sayce was indeed very inaccurate. I didn't find the correct meaning of the word epiousios, but within a 

month I found a papyrus that was reported missing for almost a century. I finished my studies and we 

wrote an article on the missing papyrus to be published in Novum Testamentum. In december 1998 I 

wrote a letter to Bruce M. Metzger at Princeton Theological Seminary, who had been searching for the 

papyrus for years. He was very surprised and answered at 17 december 1998 that he had taken the 

liberty to send a copy of the material we found on to his friend Frederick Danker who was up-dating 

the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek-English Lexicon! Now you know why Danker writes ''Origen is 

very likely correct in saying the word is coined by the evangelists and does not occur outside 

Christian literature.''

TVU 55 

NA 27 Matthew 6:13 kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,n( avlla. rù/sai 

h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 6:13 kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,n avlla. rù/sai 

h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/ 

o[ti sou/ evstin h` basilei,a kai. h` du,namij kai. h` do,xa eivj tou/j aivw/najÅ 

avmh,nÅ 

T&T #19 

Byz L, W, D, Q, 0233, 0287, f13, 22, 33, 579, 892, Maj, 

f, g 1 , q, Sy, sa, bo pt , goth, Didache 

quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum k 

("because yours is the power for ever") 

Didache 10:5, from Funk/Bihlmeyer (1924): 

o[ti sou/ evstin h` du,namij kai. h` do,xa eivj tou/j aivw/najÅ 

txt 01, B, D, Z, 0170, f1, 372, 2737, 2786, pc 5 , 

Lat, mae-1+2, bo pt , arab MS , Or, Ostrakon (Greece, 4 th CE), 

Acta Thomae (3 rd CE) 

pc = 130, 890, 1090 C , 2701 S , 2780* 

Lacuna: C, Sy-S 

B: umlaut! (line 9 B, p. 1241) ponhrou/Å 14 VEa.n ga.r avfh/te 

The so called "Doxology". 

Very probably an old liturgical addition (so Weiss). 

There exists an Ostrakon (now in the National Museum, Athens, No. 12.227) 

found at Megara, Greece (about half way between Corinth and Athens, near the 

Salamis island), it is dated to the 4 th CE. This clay tablet once contained the 

complete Lord's Prayer in the Matthean form. The existing fragment now 

contains most of the second half. The Prayer ends with ponhrou/ and is the 

earliest evidence we have from Greece. Compare: 

R. Knopf ZNW 2 (1901) 228-33 and: Mitteilungen des k. deutschen Archäol. 

Institutes athen. Abt. XXV (1900), 313 ff. 

There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.

The full prayer without the doxology is also in the Acts of Thomas, which is 

dated to the early 3 rd CE. The Greek text is given in "Acta Philippi et Acta 

Thomae" (1903, p. 250) by Maximilianus Bonnet as follows: 

Acts of Thomas, paragraph 144: 

Plhrw,saj de. tau/ta avne,sth kai. hu;xato ou[twj\ 

[And having fulfilled these sayings, he (Thomas) arose and prayed thus:] 

Pa,ter h`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j\ 

a`giasqh,tw to. o;noma, sou\ 

evlqa,tw h` basilei,a sou\ 

genhqh,tw to. qe,lhma, sou( w`j evn ouvranw/| kai. evpi. th/j gh/j\ 

[ It omits to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion …] 

kai. a;fej h`mi/n ta.j ovfeila.j h`mw/n( 

w`j kai. h`mei/j avfh,kamen toi/j ovfeile,taij h`mw/n\ 

kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,n( 

avlla. rù/sai h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/Å 

~O ku,rioj kai. qeo,j mouÃ evlpi.j kai. pepoi,qhsij kai, dida,skalojÃ su, me 

evdi,daxaj eu;cesqai ou[twj\ 

[My Lord and God, hope and confidence and teacher, thou hast taught me to pray thus.] 

It appears that this is closer to the Matthean form. 

For comparison, the differences: 

1. Matthew from NA 27 , same as the Byzantine form: 

6:11 to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion do.j h`mi/n sh,meron\ 

12 kai. a;fej h`mi/n ta. ovfeilh,mata h`mw/n( 

w`j kai. h`mei/j avfh,kamen toi/j ovfeile,taij h`mw/n\ 

13 kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,n( 

avlla. rù/sai h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/Å 

2. Luke from NA 27 : 

11:3 to.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion di,dou h`mi/n to. kaqV h`me,ran\ 

4 kai. a;fej h`mi/n ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n( 

kai. ga.r auvtoi. avfi,omen panti. ovfei,lonti h`mi/n\ 

kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,nÅ 

3. Luke, Byzantine form: 

11:3 To.n a;rton h`mw/n to.n evpiou,sion di,dou h`mi/n to. kaqV h`me,ranÅ 

4 Kai. a;fej h`mi/n ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n( 

kai. ga.r auvtoi. avfi,emen panti. ovfei,lonti h`mi/nÅ 

Kai. mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j eivj peirasmo,n( 

avlla. rù/sai h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/Å

4. Didache, from Funk/Bihlmeyer (1924): 

ton arton hmwn ton epiousion doj hmin shmeron 

kai afej hmin thn ofeilhn hmwn 

w kai hmeij afiemen toij ofeiletaij hmwn 

kai mh eisenegkhj hmaj eij peirasmon 

alla rusai hmaj apo tou ponhrou 

Of course the doxology is very old. It is only natural to add a closing formula to 

this a prayer. But there would have been no reason to omit it, if it were original. 

The special importance of the ostrakon lies in the fact that it has been found in 

Greece. Besides Western and Alexandrian/Egyptian witnesses we now also have 

a clear connection to the East for the short form. 

Probably from early on the prayer was communicated orally, with the typical 

slight variations. 

Regarding the prayer in the Didache it should be noted that our existing 

witnesses to its text (with doxology) are not very old. It is possible that the 

wording has been adapted to the predominant form of the congregation to which 

the scribe belonged. 


TVU 56 


eva.n de. mh. avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij( 

ouvde. o` path.r u`mw/n avfh,sei ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ 


eva.n de. mh. avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( 

ouvde. o` path.r u`mw/n avfh,sei ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/n 

T&T #20 

Byz B, L, W, D, Q, S, F, 0233, f13, 33, 700, 892 C , Maj, 

b, f, q, Sy-C, Sy-H, sa, mae-2, bo pt , goth, Basil(4 th CE), 

[WH], Trg 

txt 01, D, f1, 22, 279, 372, 892*, 2737, 2786, pc 4 , Lat, Sy-P, mae-1, bo pt 

pc = 130, 279, 1357*, 2701 S 

892: The words have been added in the margin with an insertion sign (wavy line 

plus two dots, cp. Mt 12:13), by a later hand. 

Lacuna: C, Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Western non-interpolation, WH have this term in brackets. 

Compare: 


VEa.n ga.r avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( avfh,sei kai. 

u`mi/n o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj\ 

Add: L, f13, pc, Lat 

VEa.n ga.r avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( avfh,sei kai. 

u`mi/n o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ 

See also: 

NA 27 Mark 11:25 Kai. o[tan sth,kete proseuco,menoi( avfi,ete ei; ti e;cete 

kata, tinoj( i[na kai. o` path.r u`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j avfh/| u`mi/n ta. 

paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ 

Add here verse 26: A, (C), (D), Q, (f1), (f13), (33), Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H 

BYZ Mark 11:26 eiv de. u`mei/j ou=k avfi,ete( ouvde o` path.r u`mw/n o` evn toi/j 

ouvranoi/j avfhsei. ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ

Possibly there is a Chiastic structure: 

VEa.n ga.r avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij 

ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( 

avfh,sei kai. u`mi/n o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj\ 

eva.n de. mh. avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij( 

ouvde. o` path.r u`mw/n avfh,sei 

ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ 

A-B-C 

A-C-B 

Inserting the suspicious term would disturb the Chiastic structure: 

B, Maj: L, f13: 

A-B-C A-B-C-B 

A-B-C-B A-B-C-B 

The support is quite good for the longer version. Note that L and f13 add the 

words also in verse 14! 

Probably an addition from immediate context, verse 14, to make the text more 

symmetrical (so Weiss in his "Das Mt-Evangelium und seine Lk Parallelen", 1876 

and also in his "Textkritik", 1899): "That scribes take offence at such 

abundances is extremely improbable". 

In his 1890 commentary though ("Das Mt-Evangelium"), Weiss argues that the 

words are "too inconvenient" next to the same words later in the verse, to have 

been added secondarily. He removes this comment later in the 1898 edition and 

writes: "it has probably ('wohl') been added like verse 14". 

That B supports the long version is not really problematic, because it is one of 

its typical errors of thoughtlessness, simply repeating the words from verse 14. 




TVU 57 

NA 27 Matthew 6:21 o[pou ga,r evstin o` qhsauro,j sou( evkei/ e;stai kai. h` 

kardi,a souÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:21 o[pou ga,r evstin o` qhsauro,j u`mw/n( evkei/ e;stai kai. h` 

kardi,a u`mwnÅ 

Byz K, P, L, W, D, Q, 0233, 118, f13, 33, 579, 700, 892, 1071, Maj, Sy, bo pt 

txt 01, B, f1, 372, pc, Lat, Co(+ mae-2), goth, Basil(4 th CE) 

Lacuna: C, D, Sy-S 

B: umlaut! (line 7 C, p. 1241) o` qhsauro,j sou( evkei/ e;stai 

Justin, Apol 15:16 

o[pou ga,r o` qhsauro,j evstin ( evkei/ kai. o` nou/j tou/ avnqrw,pou 

Clement Alex. (Strom. VII, 12:77 and Liber quis 17:1) 

o[pou ga.r o` nou/j tinoj( evkei/ kai. o` qhsauro,j auvtou/ 

o[pou ga.r o` nou/j tou/ avnqrw,pou( evkei/ kai. o` qhsauro,j auvtou/ 

Macarius Egypt (4 th CE), Homily XLIII, 3: 

o[pou o` nou/j sou( evkei/ kai. o` qhsauro,j sou 

6:16 Wenn ihr aber fastet, P 

6:17 Wenn du aber fastest, S 

6:18 damit du nicht S 

6:19 Sammelt euch nicht P 

6:20 sammelt euch aber P 

6:21 Denn wo dein Schatz ist S 

6:22 wenn nun dein Auge S 

6:23 wenn aber dein Auge S 

6:24 Ihr könnt nicht P 

6:25 Deshalb sage ich euch: P 

Compare Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 12:34 o[pou ga,r evstin o` qhsauro.j u`mw/n( evkei/ kai. h` kardi,a 

u`mw/n e;staiÅ 

u`mw/n seems more likely to be a harmonization to verse 20 or to Lk. 

Note the interesting o` nou/j in several church fathers. There is no parallel for 

it in the Gospels. It has been suggested that the word kardi,a with all its

Jewish connotations was unsuitable for Justin's pagan audience. The 

substitution of nou/j for kardi,a gives the quotation a "quasi-philosophical 

turn" (Wright), appropriate for Justin's audience. 




TVU 58 



NA 27 Matthew 6:25 Dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n\ mh. merimna/te th/| yuch/| u`mw/n 

ti, fa,ghte Îh' ti, pi,hteÐ( mhde. tw/| sw,mati u`mw/n ti, evndu,shsqeÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:25 Dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n mh. merimna/te th/| yuch/| u`mw/n ti, 

fa,ghte kai. ti, pi,hte mhde. tw/| sw,mati u`mw/n ti, evndu,shsqe 

kai. ti, pi,hte L, D, Q, 0233, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, Basil(4 th CE) 1/2 

h' ti, pi,hte B, W, f13, 22 mg , 33, al, it(aur, c, f, g 1 , h, q), sa pt , mae-1, bo, 

Or, Basil(4 th CE) 1/2 , Weiss, Bois, WH, NA 25 [both in brackets] 

omit: 01, f1, 22*, 372, 892, pc, Lat(a, b, ff 1 , k, l, vg), 

Sy-C, Sy-Pal mss , Diatess Ephrem , sa pt , mae-2, Tis, Gre, SBL 

Jerome, Comm. Matt. 6:25 

In nonnullis codicibus additum est: "neque quid bibatis." 

In several manuscripts it is added: "nor what you should drink." 


B: umlaut! (line 31 C, p. 1241) Îh' ti, pi,hteÐ( mhde. tw/| sw,mati 

Western non-interpolation 

Note immediate context: Mt 6:31 

mh. ou=n merimnh,shte le,gontej\ ti, fa,gwmenÈ h;\ ti, pi,wmenÈ 

Compare Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 12:22 Ei=pen de. pro.j tou.j maqhta.j Îauvtou/Ð\ dia. tou/to le,gw 

u`mi/n\ mh. merimna/te th/| yuch/| ti, fa,ghte( mhde. tw/| sw,mati ti, 

evndu,shsqeÅ 

NA 27 Luke 12:29 kai. u`mei/j mh. zhtei/te ti, fa,ghte kai. ti, pi,hte kai. mh. 

metewri,zesqe\ 

Variants here: 

h' ti, pi,hte P75, A, D, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, Maj 

kai. ti, pi,hte P45, 01, B, L, Q, 070, 33, 157, 565, 579, 892, 

1071, 1241, e, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, bo mss , geo 

omit: 1424

See also: 

NA 27 Matthew 11:19 h=lqen o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evsqi,wn kai. pi,nwn( 

NA 27 Luke 5:30 

dia. ti, meta. tw/n telwnw/n kai. a`martwlw/n evsqi,ete kai. pi,neteÈ 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 9:4 mh. ouvk e;comen evxousi,an fagei/n kai. pei/nÈ 

and more... 

The omission could be due to h.t. (so Weiss), on the other hand the addition 

could be a harmonization to Mt 6:31 or to Lk. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 184) thinks that the addition of h' ti, pi,hte is too 

dissimilar to the Lukan parallel and must therefore be original. 

Note the h' ti, pi,hte variant in Lk! Is this a harmonization to the original Mt? 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan mh. merimna/te th/| yuch/| ti, fa,ghte( mhde. for 

Q. 

Harnack has the short Matthean form mh. merimna/te th/| yuch/| u`mw/n ti, 

fa,ghte( mhde. (Sprüche Jesu, p. 97). 


TVU 59 



NA 27 Matthew 6:28 kai. peri. evndu,matoj ti, merimna/teÈ katama,qete ta. 

kri,na tou/ avgrou/ pw/j auvxa,nousin\ ouv kopiw/sin ouvde. nh,qousin\ 

BYZ auvxa,nei\ ouv kopia/|( ouvde. nh,qei\ 

01* ouv xai,nousin ouvde. nh,qousin ouvde. kopiw/sin\ 

(corrected to txt by 01 C1 ) 

mae-2: tou/ avgrou/ o[ti ouv kopiw/sin ouvde. [nh,qousin\ 

Gospel of Thomas (P.Oxy. 655): ouv xai,nei( ouvde. nh,qei\ 

Ephrem commentary (Mc Carthy): "they neither spin nor weave" 

= Lukan D reading 

The Arabic translation of the Diattessaron has the traditional form. 

Difference: 

pw/j auvxa,nousin means "how they grow" 

pw/j ouv xai,nousin means "how they do not comb" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:26 evmble,yate eivj ta. peteina. tou/ ouvranou/ o[ti 

ouv spei,rousin 

ouvde. qeri,zousin 

ouvde. suna,gousin eivj avpoqh,kaj( 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:27 

katanoh,sate ta. kri,na pw/j auvxa,nei\ ouv kopia/| ouvde. nh,qei\ 

ou;te nh,qei ou;te u`fai,nei 

D, d, a, Sy-S, Sy-C, Cl, Diatess, Marcion T 

The original reading of 01 has been found by Skeat in 1938 by using an UV-lamp. 

The passage has been added to the list of passages to be covered by the multispectral 

imaging system of the Codex Sinaiticus project, on my request. 

Tischendorf already noted: "Hi tres versus prima manu rescripti videntur; tamen 

spatii ratio vetat ne antea auxanei, kopia, nhqei scriptum fuisse putes: tum 

enim duobus versibus tota scriptura fuisset absoluta." 

There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.

The original reading of 01 agrees with the Gospel of Thomas. In this form we 

also have a threefold negation here as in verse 26. But it is very difficult to 

judge on the extremely slim manuscript evidence. 

Note also the following word-order variant: 

auvxa,nousin ouv kopiw/sin ouvde. nh,qousin txt 

auvxa,nousin ouv nh,qousin ouvde. kopiw/sin Q 

ouv xai,nousin ouvde. nh,qousin ouvde. kopiw/sin 01* 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan pw/j auvxa,nei\ ouv kopia/| ouvde. nh,qei\ for Q. It 

has been suggested that the Q reading is already an error and the auvxa,nousin 

- ouv xai,nousin variation indicates a written source. 

Harnack has txt for Q (Sprüche Jesu, p. 97-8). 

Compare: 

• TC Skeat "The Lilies of the field", ZNW 37 (1938) 211-14 

• JM Robinson & C. Heil "Zeugnisse eines griechischen, schriftlichen vorkanonischen 

Textes" ZNW 89 (1998) 30-40 

• James M. Robinson "The Pre-Q Text of the (Ravens and) Lilies: Q 12:22-31 and P.Oxy. 

655 (Gos. Thom. 36)" in "Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus 

dem Freundes- und Schülerkreis". Dieter Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Marburger 

Theologische Studien 50), hg.v. Stefan Maser / Egbert Schlarb, Marburg 1999, 143-180. 

• JM Robinson "A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige" HTR 92 (1999) 

61-77 

• Jens Schröter "Vorsynoptische Überlieferung auf P.Oxy. 655" ZNW 90 (1999) 265-272 

• James M. Robinson / Christoph Heil "Noch einmal: Der Schreibfehler in Q 12,27", ZNW 

92 (2001) 113-122. 

• Jens Schröter "Verschrieben? Klärende Bemerkungen zu einem vermeintlichen 

Schreibfehler in Q und tatsächlichen Irrtümern", ZNW 92 (2001) 283-289. 

• James M. Robinson / Christoph Heil "The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of 

Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 12.22b-31", NTS 47 (2001) 1-25. 

• Jens Schröter "Rezeptionsprozesse in der Jesusüberlieferung: Überlegungen zum 

historischen Charakter der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft am Beispiel der 

Sorgensprüche", NTS 47 (2001) 442-468. 

• Stanley E. Porter "P.Oxy. 655 and James Robinson’s Proposals for Q: Brief Points of 

Clarification", JTS 52 (2001) 84-92. 

• James M. Robinson, Christoph Heil "P.Oxy. 655 und Q. Zum Diskussionsbeitrag von 

Stanley E. Porter", in: "For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans- 

Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische 

Schriften’s Thirtieth Year" (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 54), eds. Hans- 

Gebhard Bethge et al., Leiden / Boston 2002, 411-423. 

• Robert H. Gundry "Spinning the Lilies and Unravelling the Ravens: An Alternative Reading 

of Q 12.22b-31 and P.Oxy. 655", NTS 48 (2002) 159-180. 

• H.T. Fleddermann "Q, a reconstruction and commentary", Peeters 2005, p. 605-8 

• D. Jongkind "The Lilies of the Field reconsidered: Codex Sinaiticus and the Gospel of 

Thomas" NovT 48 (2006) 209-216


TVU 60 



NA 27 Matthew 6:33 zhtei/te de. prw/ton th.n basilei,an Îtou/ qeou/Ð kai. th.n 

dikaiosu,nhn auvtou/( kai. tau/ta pa,nta prosteqh,setai u`mi/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:33 zhtei/te de. prw/ton th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ kai. th.n 

dikaiosu,nhn auvtou/ kai. tau/ta pa,nta prosteqh,setai u`mi/n 

T&T #21 

txt L, W, D, Q, S, F, 0233, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, mae-1, Basil(4 th CE) 

omit: 01, Bá, 57, l, vg St , sa, bo, Sy-Pal ms , mae-2, Did, Eus, 

NA 25 , WH, Bois, Weiss, SBL 

B has (also Weiss): th.n dikaiosu,nhn kai. th.n basilei,an auvtou/ 

k has primo regnum et iustitiam Dei 

= th.n basilei,an kai. th.n dikaiosu,nhn tou/ qeou/ 

auvtou/ 345, 440, 817, 995, 1646 

tw/n ouvranw/n 301*, 366, 373, 726, 1272*, 1590*, Justin, Cl, Diatess Ephrem,1/2 

Justin (Apology 15:16): zhtei/te de. th.n basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/n kai. 

tau/ta pa,nta prosteqh,setai u`mi/nÅ (it is not entirely clear though from 

which source text Justin is quoting.) 

Ephrem (McCarthy): "You, therefore, must seek the kingdom of heaven, and 

these things over and above will be given to you as well." Another time Ephrem 

cites it as "Seek ye the kingdom of God …", which is also the reading of the 

Arabic Diatessaron. 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:28 a;ra e;fqasen evfV u`ma/j h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 19:24 h' plou,sion eivselqei/n eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 21:31 proa,gousin u`ma/j eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 21:43 o[ti avrqh,setai avfV u`mw/n h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/

asilei,a tou/ qeou/ 5x in Mt 

basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n 32x (Mt standard term) 

basilei,a alone ca. 7x 

Lk has: 

NA 27 Luke 12:31 plh.n zhtei/te th.n basilei,an auvtou/( 

BYZ Luke 12:31 plh.n zhtei/te th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/( 

Byz P45, A, D C1 , Q, W, Q, 070, f1, f13, 33, 157, Maj, Lat, Sy, Cl 

txt 01, B, D*, L, Y, 579, 892, pc, a, c, Co 

The term with tou/ qeou/ does not appear earlier in Mt, so it is not a 

harmonization to immediate context. But the term basilei,a tou/ qeou/ appears 

overall 53 times in the Gospels, so it is quite a common term. 

The support for the omission is slim. It is possible that tou/ qeou/ has been 

omitted to improve style. 

The word order of B has perhaps been stimulated by the fact that dikaiosu,nh 

"is said to be a requisite for admission into the kingdom (5:20) and should 

therefore come first." (so W.C. Allen, ICC comm. Mt, 1912) 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan zhtei/te th.n basilei,an auvtou/ for Q. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 98) has zhtei/te de. th.n basilei,an auvtou/ as safe. 

Compare: 

W.M.A. Hendriks "Brevior Lectio Praeferenda est Verbosiori" RB 112 (2005) 

567-595 [very unsound methodology, thinks that basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n is 

original, based on Justin and Clement] 


brackets ok.

TVU 61 


NA 27 Matthew 6:34 mh. ou=n merimnh,shte eivj th.n au;rion( h` ga.r au;rion 

merimnh,sei eàuth/j\ avrketo.n th/| h`me,ra| h` kaki,a auvth/j Þ Å 

"... sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." 

Þ and unto the hour the pain thereof arab MSS , Sy-Pal mss(B+C) 

Interesting agraphon. 

Noted in Metzger's "Early versions of the NT" under the Arabic version.

TVU 62 


NA 27 Matthew 7:2 evn w-| ga.r kri,mati kri,nete kriqh,sesqe( kai. evn w-| 

me,trw| metrei/te metrhqh,setai u`mi/nÅ 

avntimetrhqh,setai N, S, F, Q, 0233, f13, 22, 28 C , 157, 565, 1071, al, 

it, vg Cl , Cyr, TR 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:38 di,dote( kai. doqh,setai u`mi/n\ me,tron kalo.n pepiesme,non 

sesaleume,non u`perekcunno,menon dw,sousin eivj to.n ko,lpon u`mw/n\ w-| 

ga.r me,trw| metrei/te avntimetrhqh,setai u`mi/nÅ 

Harmonization to Lk. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has evn w-| me,trw| metrei/te metrhqh,setai u`mi/n for Q. So also 

Harnack. 


TVU 63 


NA 27 Matthew 7:9 h' ti,j evstin evx u`mw/n a;nqrwpoj( o]n aivth,sei o` uiò.j 

auvtou/ a;rton( mh. li,qon evpidw,sei auvtw/|È 

No txt in NA and SQE. 

omit B*, L, 118, 28, 565, 1342, 1424, al, it(a, b, c, g 1 , h), WH, Trg, Weiss Comm 

txt 01, B C , C, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 700, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, f, ff 1 , k, l, q, vg), NA 25 , Weiss text 

B (1242 B 35): evstin is added in the margin in uncial script with an insertion 

sign. The letters look enhanced. Tischendorf assigns it to corrector B 2 (= B C1 ). 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:27 ti,j de. evx u`mw/n merimnw/n du,natai prosqei/nai evpi. 

th.n h`liki,an auvtou/ ph/cun e[naÈ (16 verses away) 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:11 ti,j e;stai evx u`mw/n a;nqrwpoj o]j e[xei pro,baton 

NA 27 Luke 11:5 ti,j evx u`mw/n e[xei fi,lon ... 

NA 27 John 8:46 ti,j evx u`mw/n evle,gcei me peri. a`marti,ajÈ 

The omission is probably either a scribal error or a stylistic improvement. There 

is no reason for a secondary addition of evstin. 

Weiss in his Matthean commentary (9 th ed. 1898) reads without evstin and 

notes: "the omission is not a structural relief". In his edition of the four Gospels 

(1900) he prints with evstin, without comment. 


TVU 64 



NA 27 Matthew 7:13 Eivse,lqate dia. th/j stenh/j pu,lhj\ 

o[ti platei/a h` pu,lh kai. euvru,cwroj h` o`do.j h` avpa,gousa eivj th.n 

avpw,leian kai. polloi, eivsin oi` eivserco,menoi diV auvth/j\ 

"...for the gate is wide and the road is easy..." 

omitted by: 01*, 1646, 

a, b, c, h, k, vg mss , Cl, Hipp, Or pt , Did pt , Eus, Cyp, WH, Bois, Bal 

UBS 4 adds L211 

WH have h` pu,lh in the margin 

Tis, NA 25 both have it in brackets in the text 

OLat is divided: aur, f, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg have "porta". 

omit eivsin: 01*, Cl (Both cases are corrected by 01 B = 01 C1 ) 

Lacuna: D, Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Compare next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 7:14 ti, stenh. h` pu,lh kai. teqlimme,nh h` o`do.j h` avpa,gousa 

eivj th.n zwh.n kai. ovli,goi eivsi.n oi` eu`ri,skontej auvth,nÅ 

Omit h` pu,lh: 113, 182*, 482, 544, a, h, k, Cl, Hipp, Or pt , Eus, Cyp, Bois 

Tis has it in brackets in the text 

o[ti platei/a kai. euvru,cwroj h` o`do.j 

"...for the road is wide and easy..." 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 13:24 avgwni,zesqe eivselqei/n dia. th/j stenh/j qu,raj( 

o[ti polloi,( le,gw u`mi/n( zhth,sousin eivselqei/n kai. ouvk ivscu,sousinÅ 

WH think that without h` pu,lh it makes better sense and that scribes probably 

added it to make the sentence parallel to verse 14. (But in verse 14 the omission 

appears, too!) 

Metzger notes: "... and to account for the absence of the word in one or both 

verses sa a deliberate excision made by copyists who failed to understand that 

the intended picture is that of a roadway leading to a gate." 

Boismard and UBS 4 add Tatian/Diatessaron in favor of the omission in both 

verses.

Weiss notes (Textkritik, p. 125f.) that 01 often omits the subject, so it is not a 

weighty witness for the omission, which is probably just an accidental omission. 

Note especially that 01 HAS h` pu,lh again in the next verse 14. The history of 

the exegesis of this passage, which tried in vain to interpret the double image, 

shows that it is much more probable here to omit than to add. 

Streeter ("Four Gospels", p. 283) adopts the shorter reading as possible ("If 

this reading is original …"). 

So also Zahn (Com. Mat.): "very doubtful". He thinks that the addition in verse 

13 is a conformation to verse 14, and the omission in verse 14 is a conformation 

to the original short reading in verse 13. 

Carl Cosaert in his thesis "The text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria" 

writes regarding the citation of Cl in the apparatus of NA: "Clement's reference 

is brief and allusionary, making it difficult to determine if he is actually citing 

the passage or just making a comparison." The quotes are: 

1. stenh $gar tw onti% kai teqlimmenh h odoj $kuriou% (Strom. 

4.5.3) 

2. $duo odouj upotiqemenou tou Euaggeliou … kai thn men 

kalountwn% stenhn kai teqlimmenhn (Strom. 5.31.1) 

3. dia stenhj kai teqlimmenhj thj kuriakhj ontwj odou (Strom. 

6.2.3) 

Compare also F. Blass "Textkritische Bemerkungen Mt", 1900, p. 20-21, who 

argues for ti, for the first o[ti (118*, Cyp), as in verse 14. 


TVU 65 


NA 27 Matthew 7:13 Eivse,lqate dia. th/j stenh/j pu,lhj\ o[ti platei/a h` pu,lh 

kai. euvru,cwroj h` o`do.j h` avpa,gousa eivj th.n avpw,leian kai. polloi, 

eivsin oi` eivserco,menoi diV auvth/j\ 

Not in NA but in SQE! 

dierco,menoi L1043 

eivsporeuo,menoi 

poreuo,menoi 01 C2 f1, 22, 157, 713, 892, 1071, pc 

, Sy-C, Sy-P 

01* reads eivserco,menoi. Above eiserco were dots, which have subsequently 

been deleted. An arrow indicates an insertion and at the bottom of the column, 

one can make out poreuomai, also subsequently deleted. This would give 

poreuomaimenoi, but probably just poreuo,menoi is meant. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 13:24 avgwni,zesqe eivselqei/n dia. th/j stenh/j qu,raj( o[ti 

polloi,( le,gw u`mi/n( zhth,sousin eivselqei/n kai. ouvk ivscu,sousinÅ 

The correction by 01 C2 is interesting. Possibly stylistic? 


TVU 66 



NA 27 Matthew 7:14 ti, stenh. h` pu,lh kai. teqlimme,nh h` o`do.j h` avpa,gousa 

eivj th.n zwh.n kai. ovli,goi eivsi.n oi` eu`ri,skontej auvth,nÅ 

o[ti 01*, N C , X, 157, 372, 700 C , 828, 1071, 1243, pc, L1043, 

Co, Or, NA 25 , WH, Tis, Bal, SBL 

o[ti de. B*, sa mss , Weiss 

kai. 209 

ti, 01 C2 , (B C2 ), C, L, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy 

ti, de. B C2 

The correction in B (p. 1242 C 18) is a slash through the unenhanced O and a dot 

above the O. Acc. to Tischendorf this is a correction by the enhancer B 3 , but it 

is not clear if the dot or the slash were already present before. The ink is 

slightly darker than the unenhanced letter, but not as dark as the enhanced 

letters. 


B: no umlaut 

"How [ti,] narrow the gate is... 

"Because [o[ti] the gate is narrow... 


NA 27 Matthew 7:13 Eivse,lqate dia. th/j stenh/j pu,lhj\ o[ti platei/a h` pu,lh 

kai. euvru,cwroj h` o`do.j h` avpa,gousa eivj th.n avpw,leian kai. polloi, 

eivsin oi` eivserco,menoi diV auvth/j\ ti, a, b, h, l, q, Cypr 

Weiss, in favor of o[ti de. writes (Textkritik, p. 36f.): "The emendators 

stumbled over the repeated o[ti and wrote ti,. But the editors overlook that o[ti 

is followed in B* by de., which has been omitted either of ignorance or as a 

conformation to verse 13." 


TVU 67 


NA 27 Matthew 7:18 ouv du,natai de,ndron avgaqo.n karpou.j ponhrou.j 

poiei/n ouvde. de,ndron sapro.n karpou.j kalou.j poiei/nÅ 

evnegkei/n B, L1043, Tert, Or pt , Adamantius (4 th CE), 

WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt 01, C, L, W, Z, Q, 0250, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, Or pt 

2 nd poiei/n: 

evnegkei/n 01*, Tert?, Or pt , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt 01 C1 , B, C, L, W, Z, Q, 0250, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892, 

Maj, L1043, Latt, Sy, Or pt 

Tischendorf in his 8 th edition prints both times evnegkei/n, because he was of the 

impression that 01* vid reads evnegkei/n also for the first poiei/n. This is neither 

in Swanson nor in NA. Tischendorf writes in his 01 edition: "poiei/n prima manu 

rescriptum est, sed non supersunt vestigia prioris scripturae, unde antea 

evnegkei/n scriptum esse confirmetur." 

There clearly is an erasure at the first poiei/n. But no letters can be made out. 


Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

evnegkei/n fe,rw verb infinitive aorist active 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:43 Ouv ga,r evstin de,ndron kalo.n poiou/n karpo.n sapro,n( 

ouvde. pa,lin de,ndron sapro.n poiou/n karpo.n kalo,nÅ 

LXX: 

LXX Joel 2:22 ... o[ti xu,lon h;negken to.n karpo.n auvtou/ ... 

LXX Hosea 9:16 ... ta.j rì,zaj auvtou/ evxhra,nqh karpo.n ouvke,ti mh. evne,gkh| 

...

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 4:8 kai. a;lla e;pesen eivj th.n gh/n th.n kalh.n kai. evdi,dou 

karpo.n avnabai,nonta kai. auvxano,mena kai. e;feren e]n tria,konta ... 

NA 27 John 12:24 ... eva.n de. avpoqa,nh|( polu.n karpo.n fe,reiÅ 

NA 27 John 15:2 pa/n klh/ma evn evmoi. mh. fe,ron karpo.n ai;rei auvto,( kai. 

pa/n to. karpo.n fe,ron kaqai,rei auvto. i[na karpo.n plei,ona fe,rh|Å 

NA 27 John 15:4 kaqw.j to. klh/ma ouv du,natai karpo.n fe,rein avfV eàutou/ 

NA 27 John 15:5 o` me,nwn evn evmoi. kavgw. evn auvtw/| ou-toj fe,rei karpo.n 

polu,n 

NA 27 John 15:8 i[na karpo.n polu.n fe,rhte kai. ge,nhsqe evmoi. maqhtai,Å 

NA 27 John 15:16 ... kai. karpo.n fe,rhte kai. o` karpo.j u`mw/n me,nh| ... 

Previous verse 17: 

NA 27 Matthew 7:17 ou[twj pa/n de,ndron avgaqo.n karpou.j kalou.j poiei/( to. 

de. sapro.n de,ndron karpou.j ponhrou.j poiei/Å 

and next verse 19: 

NA 27 Matthew 7:19 pa/n de,ndron mh. poiou/n karpo.n kalo.n evkko,ptetai 

kai. eivj pu/r ba,lletaiÅ 

Interesting variation of 01 and B. In verse 17 poiei/ is safe. 

evnegkei/n appears only five times in the LXX. That fe,rw is used with karpo,j 

can be seen from the above references. 

It is possible that the word has been changed to avoid a double poiei/n. So also 

Metzger: "The substitution of evnegkei/n for one or both of the occurrences of 

poiei/n in verse 18 appears to be a stylistic improvement introduced in order to 

relieve the monotonous repetition of the same verb, which also occurs twice in 

the preceding verse. 

In Mt the combination of karpo,j with poie,w appears 5 more times without 

variation. 

Probably an accidental variation from common usage. 

That poiei/n is a harmonization to Lk is possible, but rather improbable. 

Weiss agrees with Tischendorf in having both times evnegkei/n and argues that 

the Infinitive Aorist is very suitable, expressing that it cannot happen even 

once. In his view B uses poiei/n in the second place as a conformation to the 

following poiou/n karpo.n, verse 19. The majority text is a conformation to 

verse 17. 


TVU 68 


NA 27 Matthew 7:21 Ouv pa/j o` le,gwn moi\ ku,rie ku,rie( eivseleu,setai eivj 

th.n basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/n( avllV o` poiw/n to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j mou 

tou/ evn toi/j ouvranoi/j Þ Å 

T&T #22 

Þ auvto,j/ou-toj eivseleu,setai eivj th.n basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/n 

C C , W, Q, F, 33, 713, 1071, 1241, pc 5 , Lat, Sy-C, arab MS 

f, h read txt. 


B: umlaut! (line 12 A, p. 1243) evn toi/j ouvranoi/jÅ 22 polloi. 

Clearly a secondary addition to make the saying more symmetrical. 


TVU 69 


NA 27 Matthew 7:23 kai. to,te o`mologh,sw auvtoi/j o[ti ouvde,pote e;gnwn 

u`ma/j\ avpocwrei/te avpV evmou/ Þ oi` evrgazo,menoi th.n avnomi,anÅ 

avnacwrei/te Q, f13, pc, Justin 1/2 

Þ pa,ntej L, Q, f13, 1424, al, b, vg mss 

omnes 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 13:27 kai. evrei/ le,gwn u`mi/n\ ouvk oi=da Îu`ma/jÐ po,qen evste,\ 

avpo,sthte avpV evmou/ pa,ntej evrga,tai avdiki,ajÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:24 e;legen\ avnacwrei/te( ouv ga.r avpe,qanen to. kora,sion 

avlla. kaqeu,deiÅ kai. katege,lwn auvtou/Å 

The addition of pa,ntej is clearly a harmonization to Lk. 

The avnacwrei/te is more difficult to explain. The meaning is the same. Possibly 

stylistic to avoid the double avp – avp ? Justin uses it once too (Dial. 76:5) but 

has in Apol. 16:11 avpocwrei/te. 


TVU 70 


NA 27 Matthew 7:26 kai. pa/j o` avkou,wn mou tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj kai. mh. 

poiw/n auvtou.j o`moiwqh,setai avndri. mwrw/|( o[stij wv|kodo,mhsen auvtou/ 

th.n oivki,an evpi. th.n a;mmon\ 

pa/j o[stij avkou,ei...poi,ei Q, f13, pc 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 7:24 Pa/j ou=n o[stij avkou,ei mou tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj kai. 

poiei/ auvtou,j( o`moiwqh,setai avndri. froni,mw|( o[stij wv|kodo,mhsen auvtou/ 

th.n oivki,an evpi. th.n pe,tran\ 


TVU 71 


NA 27 Matthew 7:27 kai. kate,bh h` broch. kai. h=lqon oi` potamoi. kai. 

e;pneusan oi` a;nemoi kai. prose,koyan th/| oivki,a| evkei,nh|( kai. e;pesen kai. 

h=n h` ptw/sij auvth/j mega,lhÅ 

prose,rrhxan C, M, Q, f1, 22, al 

prose,krousan f13, pc 

prose,peson pc, Basil(4 th CE) 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:48 plhmmu,rhj de. genome,nhj prose,rhxen o` potamo.j th/| oivki,a| 

evkei,nh|( kai. ouvk i;scusen saleu/sai auvth.n dia. to. kalw/j oivkodomh/sqai 

auvth,nÅ 

For proskrou,w compare: 

LXX Job 40:23 eva.n ge,nhtai plh,mmura ouv mh. aivsqhqh/| pe,poiqen o[ti 

proskrou,sei o` Iorda,nhj eivj to. sto,ma auvtou/ 

"Even if the river is turbulent, it (the hippopotamus) is not frightened; it is confident though 

Jordan rushes against its mouth." 

prose,rrhxan is a harmonization to Lk. 

proskrou,w "strike or beat against", is a rare word in the Bible (only 2 Ma 

13:19; Job 40:23; Sir. 13:2). The change is probably accidental. 


TVU 72 


NA 27 Matthew 7:27 kai. kate,bh h` broch. kai. h=lqon oi` potamoi. kai. 

e;pneusan oi` a;nemoi kai. prose,koyan th/| oivki,a| evkei,nh|( kai. e;pesen kai. 

h=n h` ptw/sij auvth/j mega,lh Þ Å 

Þ sfo,dra S, Q, f13, 33, 713, 1241 C , al, mae-1, Sy-Pal, arab MS , Basil(4 th CE) 

1241, folio 9 recto, second last line: mega,lh is the last word of a line. sfo,dra 

has been added next to it in the margin by the original scribe. It is not clear if 

this is really a correction, because the scribe is doing this at times to finish a 

sentence on a line. 


B: no umlaut 

It's not from the Lukan parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:49 kai. evge,neto to. r`h/gma th/j oivki,aj evkei,nhj me,gaÅ 

But compare: 


ivdo,ntej de. to.n avste,ra evca,rhsan cara.n mega,lhn sfo,draÅ 


TVU 73 


NA 27 Matthew 7:28 Kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j tou.j lo,gouj 

tou,touj( evxeplh,ssonto oi` o;cloi evpi. th/| didach/| auvtou/\ 

pa,ntej oi` o;cloi D, Q, f1, 22, pc, vg ms , Sy-Pal, Or 

pa,ntej 998, Eus 


B: no umlaut 

A natural addition. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:23 kai. evxi,stanto pa,ntej oi` o;cloi kai. e;legon\ mh,ti outo,j 

evstin o` uiò.j Daui,dÈ 


TVU 74 

NA 27 Matthew 7:29 h=n ga.r dida,skwn auvtou.j w`j evxousi,an e;cwn 

kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/j auvtw/n Þ Å 

BYZ Matthew 7:29 h=n ga.r dida,skwn auvtou.j w`j evxousi,an e;cwn 

kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/j 

Only Byz in NA! 

Byz C*, L, M, X, 565, 700, 1424, Maj, f, goth 

txt 01, B, C C2 , K, P, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 372, 579, 892, 1365, al, 

Lat, Sy, Co 

Þ kai. oi` Farisai/oi C C2 , W, 33, 713, 1241, pc, Lat, Sy, Eus pt , geo 2A 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 1:22 kai. evxeplh,ssonto evpi. th/| didach/| auvtou/\ h=n ga.r 

dida,skwn auvtou.j w`j evxousi,an e;cwn kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/jÅ 

kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/j auvtw/nÅ 

C, M, D, 33, 579, 1342, pc, Sy 

Compare Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 5:30 kai. evgo,gguzon oi` Farisai/oi kai. oi` grammatei/j auvtw/n 

BYZ Luke 5:30 kai. evgo,gguzon oi` grammatei/j auvtw/n kai. oi` Farisai/oi 

Either the txt reading is a harmonization to Lk or the Byzantine reading is a 

harmonization to Mk. grammatei/j auvtw/n is a rare term. It appears only here 

and in Lk 5:30. It is more probable that it has been changed to the more general 

term. 




TVU 75 


NA 27 Matthew 8:5 Eivselqo,ntoj de. auvtou/ eivj Kafarnaou.m prosh/lqen 

auvtw/| e`kato,ntarcoj parakalw/n auvto.n 

Meta. de. tau/ta k, Sy-S 

Meta. de. tau/ta eivselqo,ntoj de. auvtou/ eivj Kafarnaou.m 

Post haec autem cum introisset Capharnaum 

it(a, b, c, f, g 1 , h, q), vg mss , Sy-C, goth 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , l, vg) read txt. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:1 VEpeidh. evplh,rwsen pa,nta ta. r`h,mata auvtou/ eivj ta.j 

avkoa.j tou/ laou/( eivsh/lqen eivj Kafarnaou,mÅ 

One of those strange agreements of k and Sy-S. 

Burkitt (Evangelion – Intro, p. 237) writes: 

"I have a strong suspicion that (a) [= the k, Sy-S reading] is the true reading in 

Mt, while (b) [= txt] is an early harmonistic variant and (g) [= the it, Sy-C 

reading] is a conflation of (a) and (b). The fact that Meta. de. tau/ta is not 

elsewhere used by the compiler of the first Gospel is not necessarily fatal to 

this view, as it may possibly have stood in the source from which Mt and Lk drew 

the story of the Centurion. Besides, there is a special reason for Meta. de. 

tau/ta here. It may be, so to speak, the voice of the compiler of Mt expressing 

his belief that his new arrangement of the story of the Leper is satisfactory. 

[…] Possibly therefore the place was not indicated in the source and the 

connection of the story with Capernaum may be due to S. Luke's own information 

of conjecture." 


TVU 76 


NA 27 Matthew 8:6 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( o` pai/j mou be,blhtai evn th/| oivki,a| 

paralutiko,j( deinw/j basanizo,menojÅ 

omit: 01*, k, vg ms *, Sy-S, Sy-C, Hilarius(4 th CE) 

ke has been added by corrector B (=01 C1 ) acc. to Tischendorf. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 8:2 kai. ivdou. lepro.j proselqw.n proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn\ 

ku,rie 

NA 27 ( eva.n qe,lh|j du,nasai, me kaqari,saiÅ 

Matthew 8:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh\ 

ku,rie( 

ouvk eivmi. 

i`kano.j i[na mou u`po. th.n ste,ghn eivse,lqh|j( avlla. mo,non eivpe. lo,gw|( kai. 

ivaqh,setai o` pai/j mouÅ 

Compare: omit ku,rie: 

Matthew 17:15 01 


Luke 5:8 01* 

Luke 7:6 579 

Luke 9:59 B*, D 

Luke 12:41 f13 

Luke 14:22 D, 1071 

Luke 19:8 579 

Luke 19:16 K 

Luke 19:20 1071 

Luke 19:25 B* 

Luke 22:38 01* 

John 4:19 01* 

John 11:21 B 

John 11:34 P66* 

John 11:39 P66 

John 12:21 U*, 28 

John 12:38 H 

John 13:6 01* 

John 13:9 01* 

John 13:37 01* , 33, 565 

John 21:20 C* 

John 21:21 01 

The two occurrences in Mt 8:2 and 8:8 are safe. 

01 appears to be extremely unreliable in this case. It omits ku,rie much more 

often than any other witness (9 times!). 


TVU 77 



NA 27 Matthew 8:6 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( o` pai/j mou ... 

NA 27 Matthew 8:7 kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ evgw. evlqw.n qerapeu,sw auvto,nÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 8:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh\ ku,rie( ... 

WH Matthew 8:7 le,gei auvtw/| VEgw. evlqw.n qerapeu,sw auvto,n 

WH Matthew 8:8 avpokriqei.j de, o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh Ku,rie ... 

BYZ Matthew 8:7 kai. le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( VEgw. evlqw.n qerapeu,sw auvto,n 

BYZ Matthew 8:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh Ku,rie 

verse 7: 

le,gei auvtw/| B, k, Sy-S, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

kai. le,gei auvtw/| 01, 892, pc, bo 

le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j 700, 

Lat(b, g 1 , h, q, vg), Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, mae-1, bo mss 

kai. le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j C, L, W, Q, 0233, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj, 

it(a, aur, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h), Sy-H, bo mss , Trg 

Tregelles has: Îkai.Ð le,gei auvtw/| Îo` VIhsou/jÐ 

verse 8: 

avpokriqei.j de, 01*, B, 33, pc, sa, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

kai. avpokriqei.j 01 C1 , C, L, W, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-H, bo, Trg mg 

Sy-S, Sy-C not clear. Burkitt has: "The centurion answered…". 

01: de has been deleted by dots above the word and a small abbreviated kai (å) 

has been added in the margin. 

Lacuna: D, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

The evidence in verse 7 is given in NA as two separate variants, but they should 

be considered as only one variant. 

In verse 6 the Centurion is speaking, but in verse 7 Jesus. It is probable that 

the cause of the variation was to separate the two sentences more clearly. Since

there is no reason for an omission of either kai. or o` VIhsou/j, the short reading 

is probably original. 

Regarding verse 8 Weiss (Comm. Mt) argues, that the de. is suitable, because the 

answer of the centurion is a contrast to Jesus' words. 

IQP has the txt reading as safe for Q. Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 91) has the 

WH reading as safe. 

Rating: 1? or - (= NA probably wrong or indecisive)

TVU 78 

A question of punctuation 

NA 27 Matthew 8:7 kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ evgw. evlqw.n qerapeu,sw auvto,nÅ 

qerapeu,sw indicative future active 1st person singular or 

subjunctive aorist active 1st person singular 

A question of punctuation: Is this a statement or a question? 

And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 

And he said to him, "Shall I come and cure him?" 

This possibility has been first raised by Fritsche in 1826. It cannot be answered 

by TC, because the early manuscripts have no or only sporadic punctuation. 

Nevertheless it might be interesting to know what the later manuscripts have. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:6 o` de. VIhsou/j evporeu,eto su.n auvtoi/jÅ 

And Jesus went with them, 

Compare next verse 8: 

kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh\ ku,rie( ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j i[na mou 

u`po. th.n ste,ghn eivse,lqh|j( avlla. mo,non eivpe. lo,gw|( kai. ivaqh,setai o` 

pai/j mouÅ 

The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak 

the word, and my servant will be healed." 


TVU 79 



NA 27 Matthew 8:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh\ ku,rie( ouvk eivmi. 

i`kano.j i[na mou u`po. th.n ste,ghn eivse,lqh|j( avlla. mo,non eivpe. lo,gw|( kai. 

ivaqh,setai o` pai/j mouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 8:9 kai. ga.r evgw. a;nqrwpo,j eivmi u`po. evxousi,an( ... 

omit: f1, k, sa, mae-1, bo mss , Or? 

mae-2 has the words, acc. to Schenke 

22 has the words, too. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:7 dio. ouvde. evmauto.n hvxi,wsa pro.j se. evlqei/n\ avlla. eivpe. 

lo,gw|( kai. ivaqh,tw 

o` pai/j mouÅ 

It could have been added to harmonize it with Lk. 

Metzger suggests that it might have happened that the "the eyes of copyists 

, omitting the intervening words." 

passed from ivaqh,setai to the following kai. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has o` pai/j mou as safe for Q. So also Harnack. 

Origen quotes the words only up to ivaqh,setai. 


TVU 80 


NA 27 Matthew 8:9 kai. ga.r evgw. a;nqrwpo,j eivmi u`po. evxousi,an Þ Å 

T&T #23 

Þ tasso,menoj 01, B, 372, 2737, pc 8 , it, vg mss , (sa?, bo?), WH [in brackets] 

constitutus pc = 4, 273, 792, 899*, 995, 1403, 2236, 2703 

Lacuna: D 

B: umlaut! (line 11 C, p. 1243) eivmi u`po. evxousi,an 

ta,ssw here: "under the authority of superior officers" 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:8 kai. ga.r evgw. a;nqrwpo,j eivmi u`po. evxousi,an tasso,menoj 

Noteworthy harmonization error of 01 + B. 

There is no reason for an omission. 


TVU 81 

21. 


Matthew 8:10 avkou,saj de. o` VIhsou/j evqau,masen kai. ei=pen toi/j 

avkolouqou/sin\ 

avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( parV ouvdeni. tosau,thn pi,stin evn tw/| VIsrah.l eu-ronÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:10 avkou,saj de. o` VIhsou/j evqau,masen kai. ei=pen toi/j 

avkolouqou/sin 

VAmh.n le,gw u`mi/n ouvde. evn tw/| VIsrah.l tosau,thn pi,stin eu-ron 

T&T #24 

Byz 01, C, L, X, D, Q, F, 0233, 0250, f13, 33, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, Tis, Bal 

txt B, W, 0281, 0287, f1, (22), 892, 2786, pc 7 , a, g 1 , k, q, Sy-C, Sy-H mg , Co 

f1: parV ouvdeni. tosau,thn pi,stin ____________ eu-ronÅ 

892: parV ouvdeni. tosau,thn pi,stin eu-ron evn tw/| VIsrah.l 

pc = 4, 273, 335, 697, 1005, 2586, 2701 S 

ouvde. parV ouvdeni. ... 22 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

txt in no one in Israel have I found such faith 

Byz not even in Israel have I found such faith 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:9 ouvde. evn tw/| VIsrah.l tosau,thn pi,stin eu-ronÅ 

BYZ Luke 7:9 ou'te evn tw/| VIsrah.l tosau,thn pi,stin eu-ron 

Var. D: ouvde,pote tosau,thn pi,stin eu-ron evn tw/| VIsrah.l 

parV ouvdeni. appears only here in the NT. The support is not that good and 

mixed (W, Sy-C). Possibly an early intensification as a polemic against Israel? 

Compare the variant ouvde,pote of D in Lk. 

On the other hand the Byzantine reading could be a harmonization to Lk (so 

Weiss and Zahn). 

IQP's Crit. ed. has for Q the Lukan: ouvde. evn tw/| VIsrah.l tosau,thn pi,stin 

eu-ronÅ So also Harnack. According to Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 

2005, p. 344) Q nowhere uses the preposition para..

Note the omission of evn tw/| VIsrah.l by f1 ! 


TVU 82 



NA 27 Matthew 8:12 oi` de. uiòi. th/j basilei,aj evkblhqh,sontai eivj to. 

sko,toj to. evxw,teron\ evkei/ e;stai o` klauqmo.j kai. o` brugmo.j tw/n 

ovdo,ntwnÅ 

evxeleu,sontai 01*, 0250, 

k, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, arm, Did pt , Or?, Tis, Bal 


ibunt it, Ir Lat , Aug 

exibunt Cyp 

exient k 

01: corrected by corrector B (= 01 C1 ). 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 13:28 evkei/ e;stai o` klauqmo.j kai. o` brugmo.j tw/n ovdo,ntwn( 

o[tan o;yhsqe VAbraa.m kai. VIsaa.k kai. VIakw.b kai. pa,ntaj tou.j 

profh,taj evn th/| basilei,a| tou/ qeou/( u`ma/j de. evkballome,nouj e;xwÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 8:11 le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti polloi. avpo. avnatolw/n kai. dusmw/n 

h[xousin kai. avnakliqh,sontai meta. VAbraa.m kai. VIsaa.k kai. VIakw.b evn 

th/| basilei,a| tw/n ouvranw/n( 

Metzger: "The reading evxeleu,sontai seems to have been substituted for 

evkblhqh,sontai, either in order to avoid using a passive verb when the agent 

remains unexpressed or to provide a more appropriate counterpart for the verb 

h[xousin in the preceding verse ('will come' ... 'will go out')." 

The txt reading seems to be the more easier reading. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 47) agrees with Metzger in that evxeleu,sontai is a better 

counterpart for the verb h[xousin. He finds it improbable that evkblhqh,sontai 

is a harmonization to Lk, because it is different in many ways. 

Zahn (Com. Mat.) seems to favor evxeleu,sontai. He thinks that evkblhqh,sontai 

probably came from Lk.

The Latin ibunt seems to be a variation to avoid the notion that the sons of the 

reign already were in the kingdom (so Zahn). 


TVU 83 



Matthew 8:13 kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j tw/| e`katonta,rch|\ u[page( w`j 

evpi,steusaj genhqh,tw soiÅ kai. iva,qh o` pai/j Îauvtou/Ð evn th/| w[ra| evkei,nh|Å 

omit auvtou/: 01, B, 0250, 0281, f1, 22, 33, pc, Latt, mae, bo, Sy-Pal, 

NA 25 , WH, Weiss, Gre, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL 

txt C, K, P, L, N, W, D, Q, 0233, f13, 157, 579, 700, 892, 1071, 

1424, Maj, Sy, sa, arm, geo, Bois 

Lacuna: D 

B: umlaut! (line 40 C, p. 1243) pai/j evn th/| w[ra| evkei,nh| 

(It is not clear, if the umlaut indicates this variant or the next one, the addition 

after evkei,nh|.) 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Luke 7:3 ... evrwtw/n auvto.n o[pwj evlqw.n diasw,sh| to.n dou/lon auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Luke 7:10 Kai. u`postre,yantej eivj to.n oi=kon oi` pemfqe,ntej eu-ron 

to.n dou/lon u`giai,nontaÅ 

NA 27 John 4:51 h;dh de. auvtou/ katabai,nontoj oi` dou/loi auvtou/ u`ph,nthsan 

auvtw/| le,gontej o[ti o` pai/j auvtou/ zh/|Å 


NA 27 Matthew 8:6 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( o` pai/j mou 

NA 27 Matthew 8:8 kai. ivaqh,setai o` pai/j mouÅ 

It is possible that the auvtou/ has been added from the parallel Jo 4:51. It might 

also be a conformation to context (twice o` pai/j mou). There is no reason for an 

omission. 

That the omission is a harmonization to Lk 7:10 where there is no auvtou/ is quite 

improbable, because the wording is completely different. 

Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong) 

(omit auvtou/) 

External Rating: 1 (NA clearly wrong) 


TVU 84 


Matthew 8:13 kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j tw/| e`katonta,rch|\ u[page( w`j 

evpi,steusaj genhqh,tw soiÅ kai. iva,qh o` pai/j Îauvtou/Ð evn th/| w[ra| evkei,nh| 

Þ Å 

Þ Kai. u`postre,yaj o` e`kato,ntarcoj eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/ evn auvth/| th/| 

w[ra| eu-ren to.n pai/da u`giai,nontaÅ (Lk 7:10) 

01* ,C2 , C, E, M, N, U, X, Q, S, F, 0250, f1, 22, 33, 713, 1241, al, 

g 1 , Sy-H, Sy-Pal, aeth 

txt 01 C1 , B, K, P, L, W, D, f13, 157, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co, arm, geo, goth 

Lacuna: D 

B: umlaut! (line 40 C, p. 1243) pai/j evn th/| w[ra| evkei,nh| 

(It is not clear, if the umlaut indicates this variant or the previous one, the 

omission of auvtou/.) 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:10 Kai. u`postre,yantej eivj to.n oi=kon oi` pemfqe,ntej eu-ron 

to.n dou/lon u`giai,nontaÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 8:14 Kai. evlqw.n o` VIhsou/j eivj th.n oivki,an Pe,trou … 

Strong and diverse support! 

But there is no reason for an omission. It could have been omitted as redundant. 

The beginning of the sentence is similar to the beginning of the following verse, 

but it is improbable that this lead to the omission. 

Note that Mt 8:5-13 is a lection (5 th Sunday after Pentecost). 

It is most probable that the words have been added from Lk early and adapted 

to Mt (change of plural to singular, dou/lon to pai/da). 


TVU 85 


NA 27 Matthew 8:18 ivdw.n de. o` VIhsou/j o;clon peri. auvto.n evke,leusen 

avpelqei/n eivj to. pe,ranÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:18 VIdw.n de. o` VIhsou/j pollou.j o;clouj peri. auvto.n 

evke,leusen avpelqei/n eivj to. pe,ran 

Byz 01 C2 , C, L, X, D, Q, 0233, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, sa ms , arm, goth, Gre, Bois, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL 

Minority readings: o;clouj 01*, f1, 22, pc, bo, (Or) 

polu.n o;clon 983, 1689(=f13 c ), 1424, mae-1 

o;clon polu.n W, pc 

txt B, sa, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg mg 

WH [in brackets, with @pollou.j# o;clouj in the margin] 

Lacuna: D, mae-2 

Regarding Origen: There is a Catena manuscript (Vat. 757) in which is written: 

Keleuei de monoij toij maqhtaij o Ihsouj apelqein eij to peran 

ina mh dokh empodizesqai upo twn qlibontwn auton oclwn ... 

B: no umlaut (but on next line 22 A, p. 1244 evke,leusen avpelqei/n) 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:25 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. 

NA 27 Matthew 5:1 ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj avne,bh eivj to. o;roj( 

NA 27 Matthew 8:1 hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi,Å (immediate context!) 

NA 27 Matthew 9:8 ivdo,ntej de. oi` o;cloi 

NA 27 Matthew 9:23 kai. ivdw.n tou.j auvlhta.j kai. to.n o;clon 

NA 27 Matthew 9:36 ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj 

NA 27 Matthew 14:14 Kai. evxelqw.n ei=den polu.n o;clon 

NA 27 Matthew 20:29 hvkolou,qhsen auvtw/| o;cloj polu,jÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:47 kai. metV auvtou/ o;cloj polu.j 

NA 27 John 6:5 o[ti polu.j o;cloj e;rcetai pro.j auvto.n 

and many more... 

NA 27 Matthew 12:15 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| Îo;cloiÐ polloi,( 

BYZ Matthew 12:15 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi, 

polloi, 01, B, pc, lat 

o;cloi N*

NA 27 Matthew 14:19 kai. keleu,saj tou.j o;clouj 

to.n o;clon D, 892, Lat 

NA 27 Matthew 15:31 w[ste to.n o;clon qauma,sai 

BYZ Matthew 15:31 w[ste tou.j o;clouj qauma,sai 

tou.j o;clouj B, L, W, Maj, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H 

NA 27 Matthew 15:35 kai. paraggei,laj tw/| o;clw| 

BYZ Matthew 15:35 kai. evke,leusen toi/j o;cloi 

tou.j o;clouj C, 892 C , 1010, 1424, pc 

toi/j o;cloi L, W, Maj 

NA 27 Matthew 15:36 oi` de. maqhtai. toi/j o;cloijÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:36 oi` de. maqhtai. tw/| o;clw/|Å 

NA 27 Matthew 20:29 hvkolou,qhsen auvtw/| o;cloj polu,jÅ 

o;cloi polloi, P45, D, 1424, pc, it, Sy-H 

NA 27 Mark 4:1 kai. suna,getai pro.j auvto.n o;cloj plei/stoj( 

BYZ Mark 4:1 kai. sunh,cqh pro.j auvto.n o;cloj polu,j( 

NA 27 Mark 4:36 kai. avfe,ntej to.n o;clon 

NA 27 Mark 14:43 kai. metV auvtou/ o;cloj 

BYZ Mark 14:43 kai. met auvtou/ o;cloj polu.j 

NA 27 Luke 6:17 kai. o;cloj polu.j maqhtw/n auvtou/( 

BYZ Luke 6:17 kai. o;cloj maqhtw/n auvtou/ 

NA 27 Mark 14:43 kai. metV auvtou/ o;cloj 

BYZ Mark 14:43 kai. metV auvtou/ o;cloj polu.j 

Very difficult! In light of Mt 8:1 (immediate context: o;cloi polloi,) I would 

say o;clon is slightly more probable. Noteworthy is the variety of the variants. 

This might be worth a detailed study. Note that in Mt 5:1 and 9:36 ivdw.n is 

coupled with tou.j o;clouj in both cases. Similar 9:8 ivdo,ntej de. oi` o;cloi. 

One would expect an article here. 

From the variants in the other occurrences (see above) no clear rule can be 

established. Both expansion and reduction happen, also both pluralization and 

singularization take place.

The support for o;clon is extremely slim. W.C. Allen (ICC comm. Mt, 1912) 

thinks it is a harmonization to Mk 4:36, but without giving a reason. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 30) thinks that first o;clon has been conformed to 

o;clouj from verse 1 and then has been intensified by pollou.j. He notes that 

the placement in front is against the Matthean norm (ratio 2 : 8). 


TVU 86 


Matthew 8:18 ivdw.n de. o` VIhsou/j o;clon peri. auvto.n evke,leusen Þ avpelqei/n 

eivj to. pe,ranÅ 

Þ discipulos suos (accusative) 

= tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ a, b, c, g 1 , q, aur, vg mss , goth, Hil 

(thus NA, SQE, Tis) 

Þ discipulis suis (dative) 

toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ h, l, Sy-C, (got) (thus Kilpatrick) 

keleu,ei de. mo,noij toi/j maqhtai/j Cyril-Alex. 

The Latin/Syriac evidence above it given from Legg. NA has everything under 

the accusative. It is not clear if the versional evidence can be used to define the 

case of a noun here. 

Lacuna: D 

B: umlaut! (line A 22, p. 1244) evke,leusen avpelqei/n 


NA 27 Matthew 8:23 Kai. evmba,nti auvtw/| eivj to. ploi/on hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| 

oi` maqhtai. auvtou/Å 

This variant has been noted because here actually Kilpatrick ("Essays in honor of 

B. Metzger", 1981, p. 355) suggests it to be original. He notes: "keleu,ein with 

the dative is condemned by the ancient grammarians though it may occur again in 

Mt 15:35 [Byz]. One way of avoiding this construction would be to omit toi/j 

maqhtai/j auvtou/, especially as an object to evke,leusen could be understood 

from o;clon earlier in the sentence." 

The problem here is that no object is provided with evke,leusen. o;clon suggests 

itself from immediate context. But very probably oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ is 

intended (compare verse 23). Thus the addition is only natural. 

Note the umlaut! 


TVU 87 



NA 27 Matthew 8:21 e[teroj de. tw/n maqhtw/n Îauvtou/Ð ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

ku,rie( evpi,treyo,n moi prw/ton avpelqei/n kai. qa,yai to.n pate,ra mouÅ 

omit 01, B, 33, pc 10 , 

it(a, b, c, h, q), sa, WH, NA 25 , Tis, Weiss, Gre, Trg, Bal, SBL 

txt C, L, W, Q, 0250, f1, f13, 892, Maj, Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , k, l, vg), Sy, mae, bo 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Compare also the complete discussions at Mk 6:41 and at Lk 20:45. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:49 kai. evktei,naj th.n cei/ra auvtou/ evpi. tou.j maqhta.j 

auvtou/ ei=pen\ ivdou. h` mh,thr mou kai. oi` avdelfoi, mouÅ 

omit auvtou/ D 

NA 27 Matthew 13:10 Kai. proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. ei=pan auvtw/|\ dia. ti, 

evn parabolai/j lalei/j auvtoi/jÈ 

add auvtou/ C 

NA 27 Matthew 13:36 To,te avfei.j tou.j o;clouj h=lqen eivj th.n oivki,anÅ kai. 

prosh/lqon auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ le,gontej\ … 

omit auvtou/ f1 

NA 27 Matthew 14:12 kai. proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ h=ran to. ptw/ma 

kai. e;qayan auvto.ÎnÐ kai. evlqo,ntej avph,ggeilan tw/| VIhsou/Å 

omit auvtou/ 700, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 14:19 … kai. kla,saj e;dwken toi/j maqhtai/j tou.j a;rtouj( oi` 

de. maqhtai. toi/j o;cloijÅ 

add auvtou/ Q, f13, 892

NA 27 Matthew 14:22 Kai. euvqe,wj hvna,gkasen tou.j maqhta.j evmbh/nai eivj to. 

ploi/on kai. proa,gein auvto.n eivj to. pe,ran( e[wj ou- avpolu,sh| tou.j 

o;cloujÅ 

add auvtou/ B, Q, f13, 157, 565, 892, 1424, L, 844, L2211, 

Maj-part[E, F, K, P, P], Lat, Sy, Co? 

txt 01, C, D, L, W, 067, 0106, 0277, f1, 33, 700, 1241, 

Maj-part[G, M, S, U, Y, G, D, W], Lat, Or 

NA 27 Matthew 15:32 ~O de. VIhsou/j proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ 

ei=pen\ 

omit auvtou/ 01, W, Q, 700, L844, L2211, a 

NA 27 Matthew 16:13 VElqw.n de. o` VIhsou/j eivj ta. me,rh Kaisarei,aj th/j 

Fili,ppou hvrw,ta tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ le,gwn\ 

omit auvtou/ D 

NA 27 Matthew 17:13 to,te sunh/kan oi` maqhtai. o[ti peri. VIwa,nnou tou/ 

baptistou/ ei=pen auvtoi/jÅ 

add auvtou/ 157 

NA 27 Matthew 19:10 Le,gousin auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. Îauvtou/Ð\ eiv ou[twj evsti.n 

h` aivti,a tou/ avnqrw,pou meta. th/j gunaiko,j( ouv sumfe,rei gamh/saiÅ 

omit auvtou/ P71 vid (4th CE), 01, B, Q, e, ff 1 , g 1 , sa ms , mae, SBL 

txt P25, C, D, L, W, Z, 078, f1, f13, 33, 

Maj, Lat, Sy, sa mss , bo 

NA 27 Matthew 19:23 ~O de. VIhsou/j ei=pen toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/\ 

omit auvtou/ 700 

NA 27 Matthew 21:1 Kai. o[te h;ggisan eivj ~Ieroso,luma kai. h=lqon eivj 

Bhqfagh. eivj to. o;roj tw/n evlaiw/n( to,te VIhsou/j avpe,steilen du,o 

maqhta.j 

add auvtou/ Q, f13, 28, 33, 157, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 24:3 Kaqhme,nou de. auvtou/ evpi. tou/ o;rouj tw/n evlaiw/n 

prosh/lqon auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. katV ivdi,an le,gontej\ 

add auvtou/ C, U, W, D, 157, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 26:1 Kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j pa,ntaj tou.j 

lo,gouj tou,touj( ei=pen toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/\ 

omit auvtou/ D

NA 27 Matthew 26:26 VEsqio,ntwn de. auvtw/n labw.n o` VIhsou/j a;rton kai. 

euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. dou.j toi/j maqhtai/j ei=pen\ 

add auvtou/ U, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 26:35 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pe,troj\ ka'n de,h| me su.n soi. 

avpoqanei/n( ouv mh, se avparnh,somaiÅ o`moi,wj kai. pa,ntej oi` maqhtai. 

ei=panÅ 

add auvtou/ 1071 

NA 27 Matthew 26:36 To,te e;rcetai metV auvtw/n o` VIhsou/j eivj cwri,on 

lego,menon Geqshmani. kai. le,gei toi/j maqhtai/j\ 

add auvtou/ 01, A, C, D, W, f1, 1071, 1424, al, Lat, Sy 

auvtoi/j Q, f13, L844, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 26:40 kai. e;rcetai pro.j tou.j maqhta.j kai. eu`ri,skei auvtou.j 

kaqeu,dontaj( kai. le,gei tw/| Pe,trw|\ 

add auvtou/ D 

NA 27 Matthew 26:56 tou/to de. o[lon ge,gonen i[na plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai. 

tw/n profhtw/nÅ To,te oi` maqhtai. pa,ntej avfe,ntej auvto.n e;fugonÅ 

add auvtou/ B, 0281, 157, pc, Lat, Sy-S, sa 

NA 27 Matthew 27:64 ke,leuson ou=n avsfalisqh/nai to.n ta,fon e[wj th/j 

tri,thj h`me,raj( mh,pote evlqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kle,ywsin auvto.n 

omit auvtou/ 01, B, arm, geo pt 

NA 27 Matthew 28:7 kai. tacu. poreuqei/sai ei;pate toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ 

omit auvtou/ 579 

NA 27 Matthew 28:8 Kai. avpelqou/sai tacu. avpo. tou/ mnhmei,ou meta. fo,bou 

kai. cara/j mega,lhj e;dramon avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/Å 

omit auvtou/ Q, 69, 788 

At the following verses the pronoun is safe: 

5:1, 8:23, 9:10, 9:11, 9:19, 9:37, 11:2, 12:2, 15:2, 15:23, 16:21, 16:24, 17:16, (17:19, 

18:1), 22:16, 23:1, 24:1, (26:17), 26:18, 28:13 

At the following verses the words without pronoun are safe: 

14:19 2 , 17:6, 21:6, 21:20, 26:19

At the following verses the Byzantine text adds the pronoun: 

14:15, 15:12, (14:22), 15:33, 15:36, 16:5, 16:20, 17:10, 19:25, 26:8, 26:45 

At the following verses a minority adds the pronoun: 

13:10, 14:19 1 , 17:13, 21:1, 24:3, 26:26, 26:35, 26:36, 26:40, 26:56 

At the following verses a minority omits the pronoun: 

8:21, 12:49, 13:36, 14:12, 15:32, 16:13, 19:10, 19:23, 26:1, 27:64, 28:7, 28:8 

(smaller font size indicates singular readings) 

19 times the pronoun is safe. At about 10 verses the reading without the 

pronoun is basically safe. 

Overall it is mainly the Byzantine text or MSS with predominantly Byzantine 

text that add the pronoun. The Byzantine never omits the pronoun against txt. 

It is mainly 01 which omits the pronoun: 

01 omits 5 times and adds one time 

B omits 3 times and adds 2 times 

Q also omits 3 times and adds 2 times. 

From this evidence it is clear that the pronoun is more often added than omitted 

(21 : 9). Except for 01 there is no clear tendency for omission among the MSS. 

The addition probably happened as a conformation to normal usage. 

Why the pronoun is sometimes omitted is difficult to say, perhaps for stylistic 

reasons. In the cases 8:21, 15:32, 19:10, (27:64) the support for omission is 

significant: 

8:21 

omit auvtou/ 01, B, 33, pc 10 , 

it(a, b, c, h, q), sa, NA 25 , WH, Tis, Weiss, Gre, Trg, Bal, SBL 

txt C, L, W, Q, 0250, f1, f13, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , k, l, vg), Sy, mae, bo, Bois 

15:32 

omit auvtou/ 01, W, Q, 700, L844, L2211, a, geo 1 (not in Tis!) 

txt B, C, D, L, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy, Co, 

NA 25 , WH, Tis, Weiss, Bois, Trg, Bal

19:10 

omit auvtou/ P71 vid (4th CE), 01, B, Q, pc 2 , e, ff 1 , g 1 , sa ms , mae, 

NA 25 , WH, Tis, Weiss, Gre, Bal, SBL 

txt P25, C, D, L, W, Z, 078, f1, f13, 33, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, sa mss , bo, Bois, Trg 

27:64 

omit auvtou/ 01, B, arm, geo 2B , NA 25 , WH, Tis, Weiss, Bal 

In 8:21 and 19:10 auvtou/ is added in brackets in txt. In the other two cases it is 

added without brackets. 

Metzger notes on 8:21: "a majority of the committee was impressed by the 

possibility that auvtou/ may have been deleted in order to prevent the reader 

from inferring that the grammateu.j of verse 19 was one of Jesus' disciples. On 

the other hand, it can be argued that it is because of the word e[teroj, not 

auvtou/, that a reader might infer that grammateu.j of verse 19 was a disciple of 

Jesus. Actually the absence of auvtou/ does not improve the sense, but rather 

makes the text more ambiguous." 

Metzger notes on 19:10: "the committee was impressed by the possibility that 

the presence of auvtw/| before maqhtai. prompted some copyists to delete 

auvtou/." 

For Mt 15:32 there is a Markan parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 8:1 VEn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij pa,lin pollou/ o;clou o;ntoj 

kai. mh. evco,ntwn ti, fa,gwsin( proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j le,gei 

auvtoi/j\ 

txt omit auvtou/ 01, D, L, N, 0131, f1, 28, 892, L2211, pc, Latt, Sy-H, bo 

add auvtou/ A, B, W, Q, f13, 33, 1342, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-P, sa, bo ms 

Here too, we have a quite evenly support. Tischendorf thinks that the omission 

in Mt is a harmonization to Mk, but this is rather unlikely, normally the 

harmonization occurs in Mk. 

I think the evidence would justify brackets at Mt 15:32, too. Ellingworth also 

favors the omission. 

The support for 27:64 is also quite strong, but limited. Internally everything 

points to a secondary addition of the pronoun here, because there is absolutely 

no reason to omit it. 

There is the argument that the reading WITH the pronoun is earlier, because 

only later "the disciples" became a characteristic term with unequivocal meaning

in Christianity. In earliest times, with Christianity being only one Jewish splinter 

group, the pronoun had to be added for clarity. 

Compare: 

P. Ellingworth "(His) disciples" NovT 42 (2000) 114-126 

Rating: 1? or - (= NA probably wrong or indecisive) 

8:21 brackets ok 

15:32 add brackets 

19:10 brackets ok 

27:64 add brackets

TVU 88 





omit 01 C1 , B, C, G, f1, f13, 33, 565, 892, L844, L2211, pc, 

WH, Gre, Trg, Bal, SBL 

txt 01*, L, W, Q, 700, 1424, Maj, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

01: to. has been deleted by dots above the word. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:1 Kai. evmba.j eivj ploi/on diepe,rasen 

BYZ Matthew 9:1 Kai. evmba.j eivj to. ploi/on diepe,rasen 

NA 27 Matthew 13:2 w[ste auvto.n eivj ploi/on evmba,nta kaqh/sqai( 

BYZ Matthew 13:2 w[ste auvto.n eivj to. ploi/on evmba,nta kaqh/sqai 

NA 27 Mark 4:1 w[ste auvto.n eivj ploi/on evmba,nta 

BYZ Mark 4:1 w[ste auvto.n evmba,nta eivj to. ploi/on 

NA 27 Mark 8:13 pa,lin evmba.j avph/lqen eivj to. pe,ranÅ 

BYZ Mark 8:13 pa,lin eivj ploi/on avph/lqen eivj to. pe,ran 

eivj to. ploi/on 

P45, D, H, K, P, N, U, W, G, f1, f13, 28, 700, 1424, al, TR 

NA 27 Luke 8:22 kai. auvto.j evne,bh eivj ploi/on 

BYZ Luke 8:22 kai. auvto.j evne,bh eivj ploi/on 

eivj to. ploi/on 

H, M, W, f13, 1071, pc 

NA 27 Luke 8:37 auvto.j de. evmba.j eivj ploi/on u`pe,streyenÅ 

BYZ Luke 8:37 auvto.j de. evmba.j eivj to. ploi/on u`pe,streyen 

NA 27 John 6:17 kai. evmba,ntej eivj ploi/on h;rconto pe,ran th/j 

qala,sshj 

BYZ John 6:17 kai. evmba,ntej eivj to. ploi/on h;rconto pe,ran th/j 

qala,sshj

As one can see, the tendency is always from eivj ploi/on to eivj to. ploi/on. All 

verses have a variant here. 

Lk 8:22 is the parallel to the Matthean verse and NA notes the omission of to. as 

a harmonization to Lk (so also Metzger). But this is quite improbable. 

Internal and external arguments favor the short reading. 

Weiss argues though (Comm. Mt) that the addition of the unconnected article is 

quite improbable. 

Metzger thinks that the omission "appears to be a linguistic refinement, 

introduced by scribes". 

Rating: 1 (NA clearly wrong)

TVU 89 

NA 27 Matthew 8:25 kai. proselqo,ntej h;geiran auvto.n le,gontej\ 

ku,rie( sw/son( avpollu,meqaÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:25 kai. proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. h;geiran auvto.n le,gontej 

Ku,rie sw/son h`ma/j( avpollu,meqa 

T&T #25 (oi` maqhtai.) 

oi` maqhtai$auvtou/% 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, Q, S, F, f1, f13, 22, 565, 579, 700, 1424, Maj, 

b, g 1 , h, Sy, goth, Gre 

add auvtou/ C*, W, X, Q, S, F, f1, 1424, 2680, al 290 , Sy, mae-1+2 

txt 01, B, 33 vid , 892, pc 3 , Lat(a, aur, c, ff 1 , k, l, q, vg), sa, bo, Sy-Pal mss 

pc = 591, 930, 1421* 

h`ma/j 

Byz L, W, D, Q, 0242 vid , f13-part, 22, Maj, Latt, Sy, sa, bo, goth, Eus, [Trg mg ] 

bo mss2 : me 

txt 01, B, C, f1, f13-part, 33, 892, pc, bo mss , Sy-Pal mss 

Lacuna: D, Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:38 kai. evgei,rousin auvto.n kai. le,gousin auvtw/|\ 

dida,skale( ouv me,lei soi o[ti avpollu,meqaÈ 

NA 27 Luke 8:24 proselqo,ntej de. dih,geiran auvto.n le,gontej\ 

evpista,ta evpista,ta( avpollu,meqaÅ 

Compare: 


Kai. evmba,nti auvtw/| eivj to. ploi/on hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. 

auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 14:30 ble,pwn de. to.n a;nemon Îivscuro.nÐ evfobh,qh( kai. 

avrxa,menoj kataponti,zesqai e;kraxen le,gwn\ ku,rie( sw/so,n meÅ 

omit me: f1 

oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ is a typical addition of an explicit subject (so Weiss). This 

happens often and is probably caused by public reading of a limited pericope, 

that needs to name the acting persons (lectionaries!).

It is interesting that the exclamation is given completely different in the three 

Synoptics. Again the h`ma/j is added to clarify a probable Greek idiom. Note that 

in Mt 14:30 f1 omits me. 

Rating: 

oi` maqhtai.$auvtou/%: Rating: 2 (NA clearly original) 

h`ma/j : Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)

TVU 90 

A question of punctuation 

NA 27 Matthew 8:26 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, deiloi, evste( ovligo,pistoiÈ to,te 

evgerqei.j evpeti,mhsen toi/j avne,moij kai. th/| qala,ssh|( kai. evge,neto 

galh,nh mega,lhÅ 

A question of punctuation: ti,È deiloi, evste( ovligo,pistoiÈ 

"Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" 

or: 

"What? Are you afraid, you of little faith?" 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:40 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ti, deiloi, evsteÈ ou;pw e;cete pi,stinÈ 

BYZ Mark 4:40 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ti, deiloi, evste ou[twj pw/j ouvk e;cete 

pi,stin 

NA 27 Luke 8:25 ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\ pou/ h` pi,stij u`mw/nÈ

TVU 91 


NA 27 Matthew 8:26 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, deiloi, evste( ovligo,pistoiÈ to,te 

evgerqei.j evpeti,mhsen toi/j avne,moij kai. th/| qala,ssh|( kai. evge,neto 

galh,nh mega,lhÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 8:27 oi` de. a;nqrwpoi evqau,masan le,gontej\ potapo,j evstin 

ou-toj o[ti kai. oi` a;nemoi kai. h` qa,lassa auvtw/| u`pakou,ousinÈ 


tw/| avne,mw| 01*, f1, f13, 22, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, sa ms , mae-1, bo mss , 

Eus, Basil(4 th CE) 

01* corrected by 01 C1 

Lacuna: D, Sy-C, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:39 kai. diegerqei.j evpeti,mhsen tw/| avne,mw| kai. ei=pen th/| 

qala,ssh|\ siw,pa( pefi,mwsoÅ 

NA 27 Mark 4:41 kai. evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,gan kai. e;legon pro.j 

avllh,louj\ ti,j a;ra ou-to,j evstin o[ti kai. o` a;nemoj kai. h` qa,lassa 

u`pakou,ei auvtw/|È 

verse 41 oi` a;nemoi: 01 C2 , D, E, W, Q, F, f1, 33, 157, 517, 565, 700, 

1071, 1342, 1424, pc, b, ff 2 , q, Sy-P, Co, geo 

NA 27 Luke 8:24 … o` de. diegerqei.j evpeti,mhsen tw/| avne,mw| kai. tw/| klu,dwni 

tou/ u[datoj\ kai. evpau,santo kai. evge,neto galh,nhÅ 

NA 27 Luke 8:25 … le,gontej pro.j avllh,louj\ ti,j a;ra ou-to,j evstin o[ti kai. 

toi/j avne,moij evpita,ssei kai. tw/| u[dati( kai. u`pakou,ousin auvtw/|È 

Probably a harmonization to Mk, Lk. Quite good support. 

In Mk we have two singulars, in Lk one singular and one plural and in Mt two 

plurals. In Lk both forms are safe. 

Note the similar variation at Mk 4:41. Here it is clearly a harmonization to 

Mt/Lk. Interestingly no variation occurs at Mk 4:39. 


TVU 92 


NA 27 Matthew 8:28 Kai. evlqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj to. pe,ran eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n 

Gadarhnw/n u`ph,nthsan auvtw/| du,o daimonizo,menoi evk tw/n mnhmei,wn 

evxerco,menoi( calepoi. li,an( w[ste mh. ivscu,ein tina. parelqei/n dia. th/j 

o`dou/ evkei,nhjÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:28 Kai. evlqo,nti auvtw/| eivj to. pe,ran eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n 

Gergeshnw/n( u`ph,nthsan auvtw/| du,o daimonizo,menoi evk tw/n mnhmei,wn 

evxerco,menoi calepoi. li,an w[ste mh. ivscu,ein tina. parelqei/n dia. th/j 

o`dou/ evkei,nhj 

Gadarhnw/n 01*, B, C, M, D Gr , Q, S, 174(=f13), 1010, pc, Sy, Epiph 

Gergeshnw/n 01 C2 , L, W, X, f1, f13, 22, 157, 700, 892, Maj, 

Sy-H mg , Sy-Pal, bo, goth 

Gerashnw/n 892 C , Latt, Sy-H mg , sa, mae-1+2 

D: Greek has Garadhnw/n, Latin has Gerasenorum. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

Mk 5:1 

Gerashnw/n 01*, B, D, Latt, sa 

Gadarhnw/n A, C, f13, 157, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth 

Gergeshnw/n 01 C2 , L, U, (W), D Gr , Q, f1, 22, 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1071, 

1241, 1424, al, Sy-S, bo, Epiph 

Lk 8:26 

Gerashnw/n P75, B, D, 0267, Latt, Sy-H mg , sa, bo ms 

Gadarhnw/n A, R, W, D Gr , Y, 0135, f13, 1071, Maj, Sy, goth 

Gergeshnw/n 01, L, X, Q, X, f1, 22, 33, 157, 579, 700*, 1241, 1342, pc, 

bo, Sy-Pal, arm, geo, Eus, Gre 

Lk 8:37 

Gerashnw/n P75, B, C*, D, 0279, 579, pc, Latt, sa 

Gadarhnw/n 01 C , A, R, W, D Gr , Y, 124, 346(=f13), Maj, Sy, goth 

Gergeshnw/n 01*, C C2 , L, P, X, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 157, 700*, 1071, 1241, 1342, 

al, bo, Sy-Pal, arm, geo, Gre

Diatessaron: Gadarhnw/n Syriac 

Gerashnw/n Western 

(from T. Baarda, Bibletranslator 45, 1994, 353 ff., McCarthy 

also has Gadarenes for Ephrem) 

Is seems that most manuscripts have one form in Mt and another in Mk, Lk. 

Epiphanius (4 th CE) has Gergeshnw/n for Mk, Lk and Gadarhnw/n for Mt. He 

writes (Panarion 5.35.6): 

ei=ta pa,lin evlqw.n eivj ta. me,rh th/j Gergesqa/n( w`j o` Ma,rkoj le,gei( h' 

evn toi/j o`ri,oij tw/n Gergeshnw/n( w`j o` Louka/j fhsin( h' Gadarhnw/n( 

w`j o` Matqai/oj( h' Gergeshnw/n( w`j anti,grafa, tina e;cei( tw/n ga.r 

triw/n klh,rwn o` to,poj avna. me,son h=n) 

Then again "He came to the parts of Gergestha", as Mark says, or, "in the coasts of the 

Gergesenes", as Luke says; or "of the Gadarenes", as in Matthew, or "of the Gergesenes" as 

some copies [of Matthew] have it, the spot was in between the three territories. 

Latt and Sahidic have Gerashnw/n in all three Gospels. 

L, f1 have Gergeshnw/n in all three Gospels. 

Sy-P, Sy-H have Gadarhnw/n in all three Gospels. 

Both Gerasa and Gadara are known towns. The problem is that both are far from 

the lake, 60 km and 10 km. 

The differences may have to do with uses of variant regional terms. El-Kursi has 

been proposed as the place of the story. Possibly Gergesa is El-Kursi? Zahn 

cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town 

Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake. 

The reading Gergeshnw/n, from the town Ge,rgesa, has been proposed by 

Origen to overcome the above difference (but as it appears without manuscripts 

evidence). It then probably got into the manuscripts through his suggestion. In 

his account (Comm. John) he does only mention the narrative, not the Gospel. 

"The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and 

drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a 

town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a 

statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves 

carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, 'into the 

country of the Gadarenes;' and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of 

Judaea, in the neighborhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake 

there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is 

taken, is an old town in the neighborhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it 

there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast

down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is 'dwelling of the casters-out,' and it 

contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Savior of the citizens of those 

places, who 'besought Him to depart out of their coasts.' " 

(Origen, Commentary on John VI, 24) 

Origen does not mention a copy that actually reads Gergesa. 

If we follow Zahn and rule out Gerasa completely, what was probably the source 

that led to it? Transcriptionally Gergeshnw/n is more probable: 

gera shnwn 

gergeshnwn 

gadar hnwn 

So, it is probable that Gergeshnw/n was the original reading in Mk (and Lk). 

Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is 

probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally. So we are left with 

Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 

km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the 

Dekapolis. So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n. But 

the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away. There must have 

been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es- 

Samra hills meet the lake. These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several 

ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the 

argumentation/speculation of Zahn. 

Compare: 

Theodor Zahn Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 1902, p. 923-45. 

Theodor Zahn, Comm. Lk., Excursus VII, p. 761-765 


TVU 93 


NA 27 Matthew 8:30 h=n de. makra.n avpV auvtw/n avge,lh coi,rwn pollw/n 

boskome,nhÅ 

ouv makra.n Lat(a, aur, b, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, vg), sax, 

= non longe cj. Beza (1519-1605) 

d, k, q, d read txt. 

The reading was listed in NA 25 , but has been omitted in NA 26,27 . 

B: umlaut! (p. 1244 B 40 L) de. makra.n avpV auvtw/n avge,lh 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 5:11 h=n de. evkei/ pro.j tw/| o;rei avge,lh coi,rwn mega,lh 

boskome,nh\ 

NA 27 Luke 8:32 h=n de. evkei/ avge,lh coi,rwn i`kanw/n boskome,nh evn tw/| 

o;rei\ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 7:6 h;dh de. auvtou/ ouv makra.n avpe,contoj avpo. th/j oivki,aj 

An interesting variant/conjecture, first mentioned by Theodore Beza. It makes 

perfect sense, but does not explain the universal omission of ouv. The strong 

Latin support is remarkable. 

Perhaps one should understand makra.n not as "far off" but simply as "at a 

distance"? 

Jan Krans writes: "In my opinion, the exclusively Latin attestation for Beza's 

reading as well as its obvious harmonistic virtues show that it probably began its 

life as an early conjecture. The conjecture conceivably originated when the Latin 

version was made, as the thinking of a translation is – in most cases - a less 

mechanical process than mere copying." 

Beza did not adopt the reading in his translation or his Greek text. 

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) advocates this conjecture, too. 

Note that both parallels have evkei/. 


TVU 94 

NA 27 Matthew 8:31 oi` de. dai,monej pareka,loun auvto.n le,gontej\ eiv 

evkba,lleij h`ma/j( avpo,steilon h`ma/j eivj th.n avge,lhn tw/n coi,rwnÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:31 oi` de. dai,monej pareka,loun auvto.n le,gontej Eiv 

evkba,lleij h`ma/j evpi,treyon h`mi/n avpelqei/n eivj th.n avge,lhn tw/n coi,rwn 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, f13, 892 mg , Maj, f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, (mae-2) 

txt 01, B, Q, 0242 vid , f1, 22, 33, 372, 892*, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Co 

mae-2: Schenke reconstructs: evpi,taxon h`mi/n kai. avpeleuso,meqa 

892: The words have been added in the margin, but I cannot make out any 

deletion sign for the txt reading. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 5:12 kai. pareka,lesan auvto.n le,gontej\ 

pe,myon h`ma/j eivj tou.j coi,rouj( i[na eivj auvtou.j eivse,lqwmenÅ 

NA 27 Mark 5:13 kai. evpe,treyen auvtoi/jÅ 

NA 27 Luke 8:32 kai. pareka,lesan auvto.n i[na 

evpitre,yh| auvtoi/j eivj evkei,nouj eivselqei/n\ kai. evpe,treyen auvtoi/jÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:21 ku,rie( evpi,treyo,n moi prw/ton avpelqei/n kai. qa,yai 

to.n pate,ra mouÅ (immediate context!) 

next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:32 oi` de. evxelqo,ntej avph/lqon eivj tou.j coi,rouj\ 

The Byzantine reading is probably inspired 

a) from the similar Lukan reading 

b) from verse 32 avph/lqon 

c) and possibly also from Mt 8:21 

There is nothing that can explain the origin of the txt reading, if the Byzantine 

reading is original.




TVU 95 

TVU 96 


NA 27 Matthew 8:32 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ u`pa,geteÅ oi` de. evxelqo,ntej avph/lqon 

eivj tou.j coi,rouj\ kai. ivdou. w[rmhsen pa/sa h` avge,lh 

kata. tou/ krhmnou/ eivj th.n qa,lassan kai. avpe,qanon evn toi/j u[dasinÅ 

BYZ Matthew 8:32 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ u`pa,geteÅ oi` de. evxelqo,ntej avph/lqon 

eivj th.n avge,lhn tw/n coi,rwn\ kai. ivdou. w[rmhsen pa/sa h` avge,lh tw/n 

coi,rwn kata. tou/ krhmnou/ eivj th.n qa,lassan kai. avpe,qanon evn toi/j 

u[dasinÅ 

variant 1: tou.j coi,rouj 

Byz C C , K, P, L, M, N, W, X, D, Q, f13, 565, 579, 700, 1424, Maj, 

f, h, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, mae-2, goth 

txt 01, B, C*, 0242, f1, 22, 33, 372, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co 

157 omits due to h.t. 

variant 2: h` avge,lh 

Byz C C , K, P, L, X, 22, 565, 579, 700, Maj, mae-1, bo, goth 

txt 01, B, C*, M, N, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 157, 892, 1424, Latt, Sy, sa 

mae-2: Schenke reconstructs: ai` u[ej kate,pesan kata. tou/ krhmnou/ th/j 

qala,sshj\ with u[ej u-j sow (female pig) 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 5:13 kai. evxelqo,nta ta. pneu,mata ta. avka,qarta eivsh/lqon eivj 

tou.j coi,rouj( kai. w[rmhsen h` avge,lh kata. tou/ krhmnou/ eivj th.n 

qa,lassan( w`j disci,lioi( kai. evpni,gonto evn th/| qala,ssh|Å 

NA 27 Luke 8:33 evxelqo,nta de. ta. daimo,nia avpo. tou/ avnqrw,pou eivsh/lqon 

eivj tou.j coi,rouj( kai. w[rmhsen h` avge,lh kata. tou/ krhmnou/ eivj th.n 

li,mnhn kai. avpepni,ghÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 8:31 oi` de. dai,monej pareka,loun auvto.n le,gontej\ eiv 

evkba,lleij h`ma/j( avpo,steilon h`ma/j eivj th.n avge,lhn tw/n coi,rwnÅ

tou.j coi,rouj / h` avge,lh are the readings of Mk and Lk. txt could therefore 

be a harmonization to Mk/Lk. 

On the other hand th.n avge,lhn tw/n coi,rwn could be harmonized to verse 31. 

Variant 2 is only an expansion of the txt reading. It could be a harmonization to 

the previous expanded term. The support for it is also not very good. 

variant 1: 



(after weighting the witnesses) 

variant 2: 


TVU 97 


NA 27 Matthew 9:2 kai. ivdou. prose,feron auvtw/| paralutiko.n evpi. kli,nhj 

beblhme,non Þ Å kai. ivdw.n o` VIhsou/j th.n pi,stin auvtw/n ei=pen tw/| 

paralutikw/|\ qa,rsei( te,knon( avfi,entai, sou ai` a`marti,aiÅ 

Þ o]j h=n e;th dekaoktw. evn th/| avstenei,a| auvtou/ 

mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 13:11 kai. ivdou. gunh. pneu/ma e;cousa avsqenei,aj e;th dekaoktw. 

NA 27 Luke 13:16 tau,thn de. qugate,ra VAbraa.m ou=san( h]n e;dhsen o` 

satana/j ivdou. de,ka kai. ovktw. e;th( 

NA 27 John 5:5 h=n de, tij a;nqrwpoj evkei/ tria,konta Îkai.Ð ovktw. e;th e;cwn 

evn th/| avsqenei,a| auvtou/\ 

This variant has been added to show the wild character of mae-2.

TVU 98 



NA 27 Matthew 9:4 kai. ivdw.n o` VIhsou/j ta.j evnqumh,seij auvtw/n ei=pen\ 

i`nati, evnqumei/sqe ponhra. evn tai/j kardi,aij u`mw/nÈ 

eivdw.j B, Q, P C , f1, 565, 700, 1424, L844, L2211, al 50 , Sy-P, Sy-H, arab MS , 

sa, mae, arm, goth, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bois, Gre, Trg, SBL 

ivdw.j E C , M, 157 

txt 01, C, D, E*, L, N, W, D, P*, X, 0233, 0281, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy-S, bo, Tis, Bal 

B: no umlaut 

ivdw.n o`ra,w 

eivdw.j oi=da 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:8 kai. euvqu.j evpignou.j o` VIhsou/j tw/| pneu,mati auvtou/ o[ti 

ou[twj dialogi,zontai evn eàutoi/j le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, tau/ta dialogi,zesqe 

evn tai/j kardi,aij u`mw/nÈ 

NA 27 Luke 5:22 evpignou.j de. o` VIhsou/j tou.j dialogismou.j auvtw/n 

avpokriqei.j ei=pen pro.j auvtou,j\ ti, dialogi,zesqe evn tai/j kardi,aij 

u`mw/nÈ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:25 eivdw.j de. ta.j evnqumh,seij auvtw/n ei=pen auvtoi/j\ pa/sa 

basilei,a merisqei/sa kaqV eàuth/j evrhmou/tai kai. pa/sa po,lij h' oivki,a 

merisqei/sa kaqV eàuth/j ouv staqh,setaiÅ 

ivdw.n P21, 01 C1 , D, 0281 vid , 33, 892, pc, ff 1 , k, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo 

NA 27 Mark 12:28 Kai. proselqw.n ei-j tw/n grammate,wn avkou,saj auvtw/n 

suzhtou,ntwn( ivdw.n o[ti kalw/j avpekri,qh auvtoi/j evphrw,thsen auvto,n\ 

poi,a evsti.n evntolh. prw,th pa,ntwnÈ 

eivdw.j 01 C2 , A, B, D, 124, 33, 157, 579, 1424, Maj, Co, WH 

ivdw.n 01*, C, (D), L, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 

1342, al, Latt, Sy-P, Sy-H

In Matthew: 

ivdw.n 12 times 

eivdw.j 1 time (Mt 12:25) 

Interestingly the same variation occurs in Mt 12:25 with similar support. It is 

possible that the 12:25 variation is a conformation to 9:4, but it is not clear 

which reading is original. 

It could be said that thoughts cannot be seen, only known, except in a figurative 

sense. 

eivdw.j could be a (partial) harmonization to evpignou.j in the parallels, but that's 

rather improbable. 

It is possible that the variation is at least in part accidental, because ei and i 

are pronounced alike (compare the ivdw.j variant). 


9:2 kai. ivdou. prose,feron auvtw/| paralutiko.n … 

kai. ivdw.n o` VIhsou/j th.n pi,stin auvtw/n … 

9:3 kai. ivdou, tinej tw/n grammate,wn … 

9:4 kai. ivdw.n o` VIhsou/j ta.j evnqumh,seij auvtw/n … 

9:6 i[na de. eivdh/te o[ti evxousi,an e;cei ... 

ivdh/te C, D, E, F, L, Q, pc 

Verse 9:2 and 9:4 are quite symmetrical. The question now is if the variation in 

verse 4 is due to avoid such symmetry/repetition or to create a more 

symmetrical wording (so Weiss). 

In verse 6 then, oi=da (eivdh/te) appears. But note that here again witnesses have 

o`ra,w (ivdh/te): 

o`ra,w verse 4: 01, C, D, E*, L, N, W, X, 892, Latt 

o`ra,w verse 6: C, D, E, F, L, X, Q, 892, k 

The support is similar, but abating. 

Difficult! 


TVU 99 



NA 27 Matthew 9:6 to,te le,gei tw/| paralutikw/|\ 

evgerqei.j a=ro,n sou th.n kli,nhn kai. u[page eivj to.n oi=ko,n souÅ 

e'geire B, (D), 0281, pc, Lat, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg 

e'geire kai. a=ro,n D 

txt 01, C, L, W, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, q, WH mg 

B: no umlaut 

evgerqei.j participle aorist passive nominative masculine singular 

e'geire imperative present active 2nd person singular 

e'geirai imperative aorist middle 2nd person singular 

a=ro,n imperative aorist active 2nd person singular 

Context, previous verse 5: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:5 ti, ga,r evstin euvkopw,teron( eivpei/n\ avfi,entai, sou ai` 

a`marti,ai( h' eivpei/n\ e;geire kai. peripa,teiÈ 

e'geirai B, 157, 700, Maj 

and next verse 7: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:7 kai. evgerqei.j avph/lqen eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/Å 

safe! 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:11 soi. le,gw( e;geire a=ron to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. u[page 

eivj to.n oi=ko,n souÅ 

BYZ Mark 2:11 Soi. le,gw( e;geirai kai. a=ron to.n kra,bbaton sou kai. 

u[page eivj to.n oi=ko,n sou 

NA 27 Luke 5:24 soi. le,gw( e;geire kai. a;raj to. klini,dio,n sou poreu,ou 

eivj to.n oi=ko,n souÅ 

BYZ Luke 5:24 Soi. le,gw e;geirai kai. a;raj to. klini,dio,n sou poreu,ou 

eivj to.n oi=ko,n sou 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) thinks that e'geire has been changed into evgerqei.j as a 

conformation to verse 7. On the other hand e'geire could be a conformation to 

the previous verse 5. But here B reads e'geirai! The medium e'geirai is more 

appropriate, but the variation could be at least in part accidental.

e'geire could also be a harmonization to the parallels. 

It is rather surprising that no evgerqei.j appears in the parallels as a 

harmonization to Mt. 


TVU 100 

NA 27 Matthew 9:8 ivdo,ntej de. oi` o;cloi evfobh,qhsan kai. evdo,xasan 

to.n qeo.n to.n do,nta evxousi,an toiau,thn toi/j avnqrw,poijÅ 

BYZ Matthew 9:8 ivdo,ntej de. oi` o;cloi evqau,masan( kai. evdo,xasan 

to.n qeo.n to.n do,nta evxousi,an toiau,thn toi/j avnqrw,poij 

T&T #27 

Byz C, K, P, L, X comm. , D, Q, S, F, 0233, f13, 565, 579, 700 Maj, Sy-H, arm 

txt 01, B, D, W, 0281, f1, 22, 33, 372, 517, 892, 1192, 1424, 1675, 2737, pc 13 , 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), goth 

pc = 59, 143, 496, 751, 930, 951, 1192, 1532, 1823, 2147, 2459, 2586, 2637 

omit (+kai.): X txt , 213 

X: p. 116, txt recto, comm. verso (PDF p. 235 A 16/17) 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: umlaut! (line 15 A, p. 1245) de. oi` o;cloi evfobh,qhsan 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:12 

w[ste evxi,stasqai (they were amazed) pa,ntaj kai. doxa,zein to.n qeo.n 

NA 27 Luke 5:26 kai. e;kstasij (amazement) e;laben a[pantaj kai. evdo,xazon 

to.n qeo.n kai. evplh,sqhsan fo,bou le,gontej o[ti ei;domen para,doxa 

sh,meronÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:27 oi` de. a;nqrwpoi evqau,masan le,gontej\ 

NA 27 Matthew 9:33 kai. evqau,masan oi` o;cloi 

NA 27 Matthew 15:31 w[ste to.n o;clon qauma,sai 

NA 27 Luke 4:22 pa,ntej evmartu,roun auvtw/| kai. evqau,mazon 

NA 27 Luke 11:14 kai. evqau,masan oi` o;cloiÅ 

and more... 

NA 27 Matthew 17:6 kai. avkou,santej oi` maqhtai. ... kai. evfobh,qhsan 

sfo,draÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 27:54 ivdo,ntej to.n seismo.n ... evfobh,qhsan sfo,dra( 

fobe,w is ambiguous, qauma,zw is not. Also qauma,zw is used more frequently in 

this context.




TVU 101 

NA 27 Matthew 9:13 ouv ga.r h=lqon kale,sai dikai,ouj avlla. a`martwlou,jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 9:13 ouv ga.r h=lqon kale,sai dikai,ouj avlla. a`martwlou,j 

eivj meta,noianÅ 

Byz C, L, X, Q, f13, 892, Maj, c, g 1 , Sy-S, Sy-Pal, sa, bo pt , mae-1, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, D, N, W, G*, D, f1, 174(=f13), 22, 33, 372, 565, pc, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt , mae-2, goth 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: umlaut! (line 6r B, p. 1245) a`martwlou,jÅ 14 To,te 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:17 ouvk h=lqon kale,sai dikai,ouj avlla. a`martwlou,jÅ 

BYZ Mark 2:17 ouvk h=lqon kale,sai dikai,ouj avlla. a`martwlou,j 


Byz C, f13, 33, 2542, Maj, sa, mae-1, bo pt 

txt 01, A, B, D, K, L, W, D, Q, P, f1, 28, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1424, 

Lat, Sy 

NA 27 Luke 5:32 ouvk evlh,luqa kale,sai dikai,ouj avlla. a`martwlou.j 


A typical harmonization to Lk (so Weiss). 


TVU 102 



NA 27 Matthew 9:14 To,te prose,rcontai auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. VIwa,nnou 

le,gontej\ dia. ti, h`mei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi nhsteu,omen Îpolla,Ð( oi` de. 

maqhtai, sou ouv nhsteu,ousinÈ 

BYZ Matthew 9:14 To,te prose,rcontai auvtw/| oi` maqhtai. VIwa,nnou 

le,gontej Dia. ti, h`mei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi nhsteu,omen polla, oi` de. 

maqhtai, sou ouv nhsteu,ousin 

T&T #28 

omit: 01*, B, 0281, pc 19 , sa ms , mae-2, Basil(4 th CE), WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

pc = 10, 27*, 71, 86, 179, 569, 692, 895, 947, 982, 1091*, 1170, 1194, 1386, 1413, 

1517*, 2487*, 2581, 2676 

txt 01 C2 , C, D, L, W, X, D, Q, S, F, 0233, f1, f13, 22, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 

Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, goth, WH mg , Bois, Trg 

pukna. 01 C1 , 

pukna. or polla, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-Pal 

frequenter Lat 

multa d 

multum k 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

pukno,j "frequent" 

polu,j "much" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 2:18 

dia. ti, oi` maqhtai. ... nhsteu,ousin( oi` de. soi. maqhtai. ouv nhsteu,ousinÈ 

NA 27 Luke 5:33 oi` maqhtai. VIwa,nnou nhsteu,ousin pukna. ("frequent") 

The omission could be a harmonization to Mk. It is also possible that the 

omission "is due to desire for absolute antithesis between fasting and not 

fasting." (W.C. Allen, ICC comm. Mt, 1912) 

The addition could be a harmonization to Lk although the word is different. But 

pukna. is a very rare word and it has possibly been changed to the more common

one. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 154) also thinks that polla, suggested itself from 

the reminiscence of Lk 5:33. This is supported by the reading of 01 C1 . 

It is interesting that 19 Byzantine manuscripts omit the word, too. This points 

more to a stylistic reason for the omission. 


(slight tendency to omit brackets)

TVU 103 


NA 27 Matthew 9:15 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ mh. du,nantai oi` uiòi. tou/ 

numfw/noj penqei/n evfV o[son metV auvtw/n evstin o` numfi,ojÈ evleu,sontai 

de. h`me,rai o[tan avparqh/| avpV auvtw/n o` numfi,oj( kai. to,te nhsteu,sousinÅ 

Not in NA and not in SQE! 

avrqh/| D, f1, pc 

avfereqh/| W 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:20 evleu,sontai de. h`me,rai o[tan avparqh/| avpV auvtw/n o` 

numfi,oj( kai. to,te nhsteu,sousin evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|Å 

avrqh/| C, f13, 28, 2542, pc (this one is in SQE!) 

NA 27 Luke 5:35 evleu,sontai de. h`me,rai( kai. o[tan avparqh/| avpV auvtw/n o` 

numfi,oj( to,te nhsteu,sousin evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raijÅ 

avrqh/| f1, f13 (not in NA, SQE and Tis) 

Rare compound word, appears only here and in the parallels. 


TVU 104 



NA 27 Matthew 9:18 Tau/ta auvtou/ lalou/ntoj auvtoi/j( ivdou. a;rcwn ei-j 

evlqw.n proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn o[ti h` quga,thr mou a;rti evteleu,thsen\ 

avlla. evlqw.n evpi,qej th.n cei/ra, sou evpV auvth,n( kai. zh,setai 

ei-j proselqw.n 01 C1 , B, Lat (unus accessit), Weiss 

NA 25 , WH [both with ei-j in brackets] 

proselqw.n 01*, L C , 157, pc, bo ms , sa 

tij proselqw.n C C , F vid , G, L*, U, f13, 2, al 

tij evlqw.n G, pc, k 

evlqw.n pc, bo, TR 

eiselqwn 01 C2 , C*, D, N, W, X, Q, pc 

eivselqw.n f1, 22, 124, 700, 1071, 1424, al, WH mg , Tis, Bal 

ei-j evlqw.n K, P, D, M, Y, 33, 565, 579, 892, Maj, d, f, Sy-S, goth 

L: Tischendorf has no note on this, but has the text as (folio 19): 

idou, arcontis:, pros 

elqwn tw i)u; pros 

I don't know what the colon means. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 5:22 Kai. e;rcetai ei-j tw/n avrcisunagw,gwn( 

NA 27 Luke 8:41 kai. ivdou. h=lqen avnh.r 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:19 kai. proselqw.n ei-j grammateu.j 

NA 27 Matthew 18:24 proshne,cqh auvtw/| ei-j 

NA 27 Matthew 19:16 Kai. ivdou. ei-j proselqw.n auvtw/| ei=pen\ 

NA 27 Matthew 22:35 kai. evphrw,thsen ei-j evx auvtw/n Înomiko.jÐ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:14 To,te poreuqei.j ei-j tw/n dw,deka(

A very curious variation. Probably due to overcome the equivocal 

eiselqwn. Metzger calls the change to proselqw.n "a clever scribal 

modification". 

On the other hand it is also possible that proselqw.n has been changed into 

evlqw.n, because the next word also begins with pros-. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 37) calls the ei-j "hebraistic" and thinks that it caused 

problems, so that it has either been deleted, changed into tij, or, by deleting 

the pros-, changed into eivselqw.n. 


TVU 105 




kai. evgerqei.j o` VIhsou/j hvkolou,qhsen auvtw/| kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/Å 

hvkolou,qei 01, C, D, 33, pc, WH, NA 25 , Trg, Weiss text , SBL 

txt B, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 892, Maj, WH mg , Weiss Comm 

hvkolou,qhsan E, M, al, Sy-P 

B: no umlaut 

evgerqei.j participle aorist passive nominative masculine singular 

hvkolou,qhsen indicative aorist active 3rd person singular 

hvkolou,qei indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 5:24 kai. avph/lqen metV auvtou/Å kai. hvkolou,qei auvtw/| o;cloj 

polu.j kai. sune,qlibon auvto,nÅ 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:9 Kai. para,gwn o` VIhsou/j evkei/qen ei=den a;nqrwpon 

kaqh,menon evpi. to. telw,nion( Maqqai/on lego,menon( kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ 

avkolou,qei moiÅ kai. avnasta.j hvkolou,qhsen auvtw/|Å 

NA 27 Matthew 9:18 Tau/ta auvtou/ lalou/ntoj auvtoi/j( ivdou. a;rcwn ei-j 

evlqw.n proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn o[ti h` quga,thr mou a;rti evteleu,thsen\ 

avlla. evlqw.n evpi,qej th.n cei/ra, sou evpV auvth,n( kai. zh,setai 

It is possible that hvkolou,qhsen is a conformation to context, verse 9. There is 

nothing that suggests hvkolou,qei here, except perhaps that the word occurs in 

the Markan parallel, but with another subject. 

The support is strangely divided. 

Weiss in his commentary (1898) thinks that hvkolou,qei is a conformation to the 

previous proseku,nei in verse 18, but he prints it in his text (1900). 


TVU 106 


NA 27 Matthew 9:26 kai. evxh/lqen h` fh,mh au[th eivj o[lhn th.n gh/n evkei,nhnÅ 

auvtou/ D, 1424, pc, sa, bo ms , mae-2, geo 2A 

auvth/j 01, C, N vid , Q, f1, 124(=f13), 33, 157, pc, mae-1, bo, Sy-Pal, WH mg , Gre 

au[th auvtou/ geo 1 

auth B, W, D, pc 

auvth/| L, G, pc 

au[th f13, 22, 892, 1071, Maj, Lat, Sy, arm, geo 2B , goth, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

Swanson has au[th for 33 against NA and UBS 3 . 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

txt "and the report of this spread ..." 

auvtou/ "and the report of him spread ..." 

auvth/j "and the report of her spread ..." 

auvth/| "and the report for her spread ..." 

No parallel. 

But compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:24 Kai. avph/lqen h` avkoh. auvtou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:1 ... h;kousen ~Hrw,|dhj ... th.n avkoh.n VIhsou/( 

NA 27 Mark 1:28 kai. evxh/lqen h` avkoh. auvtou/ 

NA 27 Luke 4:14 kai. fh,mh evxh/lqen ... (add auvtou/: b) 

The changes are either due to a misunderstanding/misreading of the au[th or to 

avoid an equivocal word (it could be auvth/| or au[th). 

It is possible that scribes, coming to auth, read it as auvth/|, which makes no 

real sense and changed it. 

auvth/j could be a mishearing of au[th eivj. 

Zahn notes (Com. Mat.) that auvtou/ could be a conformation to the well known 

avkoh. auvtou/ (Mt 4:24, Mk 1:28). 


TVU 107 




Kai. para,gonti evkei/qen tw/| VIhsou/ hvkolou,qhsan Îauvtw/|Ð 

du,o tufloi. kra,zontej kai. le,gontej\ evle,hson h`ma/j( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

omit B, D, 892, pc, k, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bal 

txt 01, C, L, W, Q, 0250, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, WH mg , [Trg], Tis 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:47 h;rxato kra,zein kai. le,gein\ uiè. Daui.d VIhsou/( evle,hso,n 

meÅ 

NA 27 Luke 18:38 kai. evbo,hsen le,gwn\ VIhsou/ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

hvkolou,qhsan is followed invariably by auvtw/| or a dative object in Mt (11 times) 

and also in the other Gospels. But this case is special in that hvkolou,qhsan can 

also be connected with para,gonti tw/| VIhsou/ (part. coni.). Robertson 

(Wordpictures) calls this dative the "associative instrumental" and gets (without 

auvtw/|): 

"And with Jesus, passing on from there, followed two blind men." 

It is also possible to translate: 

"And two blind men followed Jesus, as he is passing on from there" 

taking para,gonti tw/| VIhsou/ as a "dative absolute" (compare Reto Schoch 

"Griechischer Lehrgang", p. 249) 

as in Mt 21:23 prosh/lqon auvtw/| dida,skonti oi` avrcierei/j 

"came to him as he was teaching, the chief priests" 

Compare also a very similar example: 



The auvtw/| is possibly pleonastic (redundant): 

"And two blind men followed him, Jesus, passing on from there" 

Without auvtw/| the para,gonti tw/| VIhsou/ must be seen as instrumental dative, 

because avkolouqe,w needs a dative. The addition of auvtw/| could either be 

pleonastic or supply the dative for avkolouqe,w when para,gonti tw/| VIhsou/ is 

seen as "absolute".

Difficult! 


TVU 108 


Kai. para,gonti evkei/qen tw/| VIhsou/ hvkolou,qhsan Îauvtw/|Ð 

du,o tufloi. kra,zontej kai. le,gontej\ evle,hson h`ma/j( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

BYZ Matthew 9:27 Kai. para,gonti evkei/qen tw/| VIhsou/( hvkolou,qhsan 

auvtw/| du,o tufloi,( kra,zontej kai. le,gontej( VEle,hson h`ma/j( uiè. Daui,dÅ 

Byz 01, C, D, L, Q, 0250, f1, 28, 579, 892*, 1424, 

Maj-part [E, F, K, M, S, G, D], WH, Robinson, Gre, Bal 

ku,rie uiè. N, f13, 892 C , pc 

txt B, W, 565, 700, 1071, L844, L2211, Maj-part [G, U, Y, P ], 

WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

B: no umlaut 

uiò.j nominative 

uiè. vocative 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:47 h;rxato kra,zein kai. le,gein\ uiè. Daui.d VIhsou/( evle,hso,n 

meÅ 

NA 27 Luke 18:38 kai. evbo,hsen le,gwn\ VIhsou/ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:20 ivdou. a;ggeloj kuri,ou katV o;nar evfa,nh auvtw/| le,gwn\ 

VIwsh.f uiò.j Daui,d( mh. fobhqh/|j paralabei/n Mari,an ... 

safe! 

NA 27 Matthew 15:22 evle,hso,n me( ku,rie uiò.j Daui,d\ 

BYZ Matthew 15:22 evle,hso,n me( ku,rie uiè, Daui,d\ 

uiè, 01, C, L, Z, 0106, f1, f13, Maj 

txt B, D, W, Q, 565, 700, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 20:30 evle,hson h`ma/j( Îku,rie(Ð uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

uiè, P45, 01, C, D, E, L, N, Q, f1, f13-part, 33, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1424, 

txt B, W, 118, f13-part, Maj

NA 27 Matthew 20:31 evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

uiè, 01 C , C, D, L, N, 33, 579, 1424 

txt B, W, Q, f1, f13, 565, 700, 1071, Maj 

uiòu/ 01* 

The variation is certainly at least in part accidental. uiò.j is written as nomen 

sacrum as usñ and uiè, as ueñ, which look similar. B and W read invariably 

uiò.j. 

uiè, could be a harmonization to the parallels. Without B it would be clearly 

secondary. 


TVU 109 



NA 27 Matthew 9:32 Auvtw/n de. evxercome,nwn ivdou. 

prosh,negkan auvtw/| a;nqrwpon kwfo.n daimonizo,menonÅ 

omit a;nqrwpon 01, B, 124, 788(=f13-part), 892, pc, 

Sy-S, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13-part, 22, 33, Maj, Latt, Sy-H, goth 

Tregelles has a;nqrwpon in brackets. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 7:32 Kai. fe,rousin auvtw/| kwfo.n 

NA 27 Luke 11:14 Kai. h=n evkba,llwn daimo,nion Îkai. auvto. h=nÐ kwfo,n\ 

evge,neto de. tou/ daimoni,ou evxelqo,ntoj evla,lhsen o` kwfo.j kai. 

evqau,masan oi` o;cloiÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:9 para,gwn o` VIhsou/j evkei/qen ei=den a;nqrwpon kaqh,menon 

NA 27 Matthew 9:33 evla,lhsen o` kwfo,jÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 11:5 kai. kwfoi. avkou,ousin( 

NA 27 Matthew 12:22 daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. kwfo,j( 

NA 27 Matthew 15:31 ble,pontaj kwfou.j lalou/ntaj( 

NA 27 Mark 9:25 to. a;lalon kai. kwfo.n pneu/ma( 

Since kwfo.n can be understood substantivally, the double term is redundant. 

Note that both parallels omit a;nqrwpoj, but both have a different wording. 

The term a;nqrwpon kwfo.n is unique in the NT and has probably been 

changed. 

Note Mt 9:9: VIhsou/j ... ei=den a;nqrwpon. The addition might be a 

harmonization to the immediate context 9:9. The support for the omission is 

quite good and diverse. It is questionable though if all version really express this 

double term rightly. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 128) notes that the following 

participle might have caused the addition of a;nqrwpon.


TVU 110 


NA 27 Matthew 9:34 oi` de. Farisai/oi e;legon\ evn tw/| a;rconti tw/n 

daimoni,wn evkba,llei ta. daimo,niaÅ 

omit verse: D, d, a, k, Sy-S, Diatess Arab 

Latin fathers: Juvencus (ca. 330 CE), Hilary (4 th CE) 

WH have the verse in brackets. 

mae-2 has the verse. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 


Diatessaron: 

The verse is omitted in the Arabic Diatessaron (cp. Ciasca, Preuschen). The text 

jumps from verse 33 to 35. Ephrem does not comment on it. 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:24 oi` de. Farisai/oi avkou,santej ei=pon\ ou-toj ouvk 

evkba,llei ta. daimo,nia eiv mh. evn tw/| Beelzebou.l a;rconti tw/n 

daimoni,wnÅ 

NA 27 Mark 3:22 Kai. oi` grammatei/j oi` avpo. ~Ierosolu,mwn kataba,ntej 

e;legon o[ti Beelzebou.l e;cei kai. o[ti evn tw/| a;rconti tw/n daimoni,wn 

evkba,llei ta. daimo,niaÅ 

NA 27 Luke 11:15 tine.j de. evx auvtw/n ei=pon\ evn Beelzebou.l tw/| a;rconti 

tw/n daimoni,wn evkba,llei ta. daimo,nia\ 

It seems that the verse prepares for Mt 10:25: 

"It is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the 

master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more 

will they malign those of his household!" 

The verse looks very similar to the parallels. There is no reason apparent, why 

this verse was omitted. The transition from verse 34 to 35 is rather abrupt. 

Possibly it has been removed to smooth it out. 

Zahn notes (Einleitung II) that the two stories 9:33f. and 12:22f. look very 

similar and could be identical, especially because of the same Beelzebul 

sentence. Omission here would prevent this identification.

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 183) notes that the words have probably been omitted 

because the story to which the words refer did not yet happen. 

Streeter "Four Gospels" writes (p. 170): "[the verse] is a textual assimilation to 

the almost verbally identical passage in Lk 11:15; it is a 'Western noninterpolation' 

with more than ordinarily good manuscript support. Read without 

this verse, the story in Mt 9:32-33 looks like an abbreviated version of Mk 7:32 

ff. (with the 'offending' details excised), transferred after Matthew's manner 

to another context." 

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) writes: "as the manuscripts were intended for recital at 

the services, it was most probably often omitted as disrespectful." 


Omission probably wrong

TVU 111 


kai. qerapeu,wn pa/san no,son kai. pa/san malaki,anÅ 


kai. qerapeu,wn pa/san no,son kai. pa/san malaki,an evn tw/| law/|Å 

No txt in NA! 

evn tw/| law/| = Byz C C3 , E, F, G, K, P, (L), X, G, Q, (f13), 579, 700, 788 C , Maj, 

c, g 1 , Sy-Pal, arm, geo 

evn tw/| law/| kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| 01* 

evn tw/| law/| kai. polloi. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| L, f13, 517, 1010, 1424, 

pc, arab MS 

auvtw/n ta.j evn auvtw/n mae-2 

txt 01 C2 , B, C*, D, N, S, W, D, f1, 788(=f13), 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy, Co, goth 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 


kai. qerapeu,wn pa/san no,son kai. pa/san malaki,an evn tw/| law/|Å 

NA 27 Matthew 4:25 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. 


kai. qerapeu,ein pa/san no,son kai. pa/san malaki,anÅ 

kai. pa/san malaki,an evn tw/| law/|Å L, 157, pc 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:1 Kataba,ntoj de. auvtou/ avpo. tou/ o;rouj hvkolou,qhsan 

auvtw/| o;cloi polloi,Å 

NA 27 Matthew 12:15 ~O de. VIhsou/j gnou.j avnecw,rhsen evkei/qenÅ kai. 

hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| Îo;cloiÐ polloi,( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou.j pa,ntaj

The following verse reads: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:36 ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj evsplagcni,sqh peri. auvtw/n( o[ti 

h=san evskulme,noi kai. evrrimme,noi w`sei. pro,bata mh. e;conta poime,naÅ 

ELB Matthew 9:36 Als er aber die Volksmengen sah, wurde er innerlich bewegt über sie, weil sie 

erschöpft und verschmachtet waren wie Schafe, die keinen Hirten haben. 

The evn tw/| law/| is either original or it comes probably from 4:23 (so Weiss and 

Zahn). A possible explanation is that the addition originated in lectionary usage. 

It is the last verse of a Sunday lection. 

The polloi. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| is either original or it is a preparation for the 

next verse 9:36 where a crowd is required. Perhaps it comes from Mt 4:25. It is 

interesting that 01* reads this. It is difficult to explain why so many witnesses 

would omit this, if it is original. 




TVU 112 


NA 27 Matthew 9:36 ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj evsplagcni,sqh peri. auvtw/n( o[ti 

h=san evskulme,noi kai. evrrimme,noi w`sei. pro,bata mh. e;conta poime,naÅ 

evklelume,noi L, 1424, pc, TR, d 

= fatigati d 

vexati = txt Lat 

V/031: I got a note from Jairo Cavalcante: "V is nonextant for this passage. 

NA27 is in error here and like Legg and Merk, simply appears to repeat the 

wrong information from von Soden: On the other hand, SQE14 correctly 

removes the reference to V from its apparatus." (TCG Forum 2009) 

D reads txt. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

evklelume,noi participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural of evklu,w 

only passive in the NT; (1) physically become weary or exhausted, give out 

(2) psychologically lose heart, faint, get discouraged 

evskulme,noi participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural of sku,llw 

strictly flay, skin; figuratively in the NT; (1) harass, weary someone 

(2) bother, annoy, trouble someone; passive trouble oneself, bother 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:34 Kai. evxelqw.n ei=den polu.n o;clon kai. evsplagcni,sqh evpV 

auvtou,j( o[ti h=san Þ w`j pro,bata mh. e;conta poime,na( kai. h;rxato 

dida,skein auvtou.j polla,Å 

Þ evskulme,noi kai. evrrimme,noi 28, 579 

Compare: 

(from the Feeding of the Four Thousand) 

NA 27 Matthew 15:32 … splagcni,zomai evpi. to.n o;clon( o[ti … kai. avpolu/sai 

auvtou.j nh,steij ouv qe,lw( mh,pote evkluqw/sin evn th/| o`dw/|Å 

NA 27 Mark 8:2-3 … splagcni,zomai evpi. to.n o;clon( o[ti … kai. eva.n 

avpolu,sw auvtou.j nh,steij eivj oi=kon auvtw/n( evkluqh,sontai evn th/| o`dw/|\ 

kai, tinej auvtw/n avpo. makro,qen h[kasinÅ 

L is Byzantine in this part of Mt. The support by d is interesting. 

The variant is either an error due to similarity or it was inspired by the similar 

verses Mt 15:32 or Mk 8:3.

It is interesting that Erasmus has the word, since the manuscripts he used (1 

and 2) do not have it. 

The words evskulme,noi kai. evrrimme,noi do not appear in the Markan parallel. 


TVU 113 


NA 27 Matthew 10:3 Fi,lippoj kai. Barqolomai/oj( Qwma/j kai. Maqqai/oj o` 

telw,nhj( VIa,kwboj o` tou/ ~Alfai,ou kai. Qaddai/oj( 

BYZ Matthew 10:3 Fi,lippoj kai. Barqolomai/oj Qwma/j kai. Matqai/oj o` 

telw,nhj VIa,kwboj o` tou/ ~Alfai,ou kai. Lebbai/oj o` evpiklhqei.j Qaddai/oj 

T&T #29 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13part, 22, 33, 565, 579, 700, Maj, 

f, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, arm 

txt 01, B, 124, 788(=f13part), 892, pc 2 , Lat(aur, c, ff 1 , l, vg), Co(+ mae-2) 

pc = 17, 130 

Lebbai/oj kai. D, k, m, Or, Tis 

Judas Zelotes it(a, b, g 1 , h, q), vg mss 

omit: Sy-S (instead: "Judas the son of James", from Lk) 

VIou,daj o` kai. Lebbai/oj o` evpiklhqei.j Qaddai/oj 243, 854 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: umlaut! (line 30 B, p. 1246) Qaddai/oj( 4 Si,mwn o` Kananai/oj 

Augustine (Consensus 2.70): 

In nominibus ergo discipulorum Lucas, qui eos alio nomine nominat, cum prius 

eliguntur in monte, a Mattheo non discrepat nisi in nomine Iudae Iacobi, quem 

Mattheus Thaddeum appellat, nonnulli autem codices habent Lebdeum. quis 

autem umquam prohibuerit duobus vel tribus nominibus hominem unum vocari? 

Moreover, with regard to the names of the disciples, Luke, who gives their names in another 

place, that is to say, in the earlier passage, where they are [represented as being] chosen on the 

mountain, is not at variance in any respect with Matthew, with the exception of the single 

instance of the name of Judas the brother of James, whom Matthew designates Thaddaeus, 

although some codices also read Lebbaeus. But who would ever think of denying that one man may 

be known under two or three names? 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 3:18 kai. VAndre,an kai. Fi,lippon kai. Barqolomai/on kai. 

Maqqai/on kai. Qwma/n kai. VIa,kwbon to.n tou/ ~Alfai,ou kai. Qaddai/on 

kai. Si,mwna to.n Kananai/on Lebbai/on D, it 

NA 27 Luke 6:15 kai. Maqqai/on kai. Qwma/n kai. VIa,kwbon ~Alfai,ou kai. 

Si,mwna to.n kalou,menon zhlwth.n

WH see Lebbai/oj as an attempt to harmonize the lists of the Twelve with the 

call of Levi, so that Lebbai/oj = Leuei,j (Levi). In Aramaic the names would be 

Lebbi and Thaddi. Origen also seems to think that Levi = Lebbaios. 

On the other hand it is possible that Qaddai/oj is a harmonization to Mk. 

Tischendorf has Lebbai/oj in his text. 

The Byzantine reading obviously is a conflation. 

The question is if Qaddai/oj or Lebbai/oj is correct. Qaddai/oj is the same as 

in Mk. Lk has "Simon Zelotes". The reading "Judas Zelotes" of the old Latin is 

strange, because it is "Simon" who is the Zelote in Lk. 

Mk 3:16-19 

Si,mwni 

kai. VIa,kwbon 

kai. VIwa,nnhn 

kai. VAndre,an 

kai. Fi,lippon 

kai. Barqolomai/on 

kai. Maqqai/on 

kai. Qwma/n 

kai. VIa,kwbon ~Alfai,ou 

kai. Qaddai/on 

kai. Si,mwna 

to.n Kananai/on 

kai. VIou,dan VIskariw,q( 

Mt 10:2-4 

Si,mwn 

kai. VAndre,aj 

kai. VIa,kwboj 

kai. VIwa,nnhj 

Fi,lippoj 

kai. Barqolomai/oj( 

Qwma/j 

kai. Maqqai/oj 

VIa,kwboj 

kai. Qaddai/oj( 

Si,mwn o` Kananai/oj 

kai. VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj 

Lk 6:14-16 (same Acts) 

Si,mwna 

kai. VAndre,an 


kai. VIwa,nnhn 

kai. Fi,lippon 

kai. Barqolomai/on 

kai. Maqqai/on 

kai. Qwma/n 


kai. Si,mwna to.n 

kalou,menon zhlwth.n 

kai. VIou,dan VIakw,bou 

kai. VIou,dan VIskariw,q 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) argues for Lebbai/oj, mainly on external evidence. He adds 

the Byzantine reading to the evidence for Lebbai/oj. The evidence for 

Lebbai/oj is certainly strong. 

It has also been suggested that Lebbai/oj is a geographical designation, Thaddi 

from Lebba. 

According to Lk 6:16 and Jo 14:22 there was another disciple called Judas. It is 

possible that this Judas had more than one name (Lebbi, Thaddi) and that he 

was not called Judas anymore, after Judas Iscariot's betrayal.

Epiphanius is giving the names of the 12 apostles, twice. 

Epiphanius: 

Simon 

Andreas 

Jakobus Zeb. 

Johannes 

Philippus 

Bartholomeus 

Matthew 

Thomas 

Judas 

Thaddeus 

Simon Zelotes 

Judas Iskariot 

Matthew: 

Simon 

Andreas 

Jakobus Zeb. 

Johannes 

Philippus 

Bartholomeus 

Thomas 

Matthew 

Jakobus Alph. 

Thaddeus 

Simon Zelotes 

Judas Iskariot 

Luke also has a VIou,daj VIakw,bou. 

Compare also variants at Mk 2:14, 15:47. 


TVU 114 

NA 27 Matthew 10:8 avsqenou/ntaj qerapeu,ete( nekrou.j evgei,rete( leprou.j 

kaqari,zete( daimo,nia evkba,llete\ dwrea.n evla,bete( dwrea.n do,teÅ 

BYZ Matthew 10:8 avsqenou/ntaj qerapeu,ete leprou.j 

kaqari,zete daimo,nia evkba,llete\ dwrea.n evla,bete dwrea.n do,te 

Byz C C , K, P, L, X, G, Q, 124, 174, 788(=f13-part), 118, 700*, Maj, 

f, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, sa, mae-1, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, C*, D, N, P, W, D, f1, f13-part, 22, 33, 157, 565, 892, pc 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H, bo 

leprou.j kaqari,zete( daimo,nia evkba,llete( nekrou.j evgei,rete P, W, D 

leprou.j kaqari,zete( nekrou.j evgei,rete( daimo,nia evkba,llete TR 

Swanson notes a correction in 1582, indicating that the correction apparently 

reads the TR reading, but this is an error. No correction can be seen in the film. 

It is also not noted in A. Anderson's book on f1 in Mt. 

Lacuna: Sy-C, mae-2 

B: possibly umlaut, weak (line 6 C, p. 1246) qerapeu,ete( nekrou.j evgei,rete 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 11:5 tufloi. avnable,pousin kai. cwloi. peripatou/sin( 

leproi. kaqari,zontai kai. kwfoi. avkou,ousin( kai. nekroi. evgei,rontai 

kai. ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai\ (same in Lk 7:22) 

The text is supported in various different sequences. Obviously scribes felt the 

need to order the various tasks. Possibly the term felt out by h.t. ETE - ETE (so 

Weiss). 

It is basically possible that the words have been added as a conformation to 

11:5, but there are various other differences, which have not been corrected. 

The reading of the TR is a printing error in Erasmus' 2 nd edition, according to 

Th. Zahn. 

J.F. Racine ("The text of Mt in Basil", 2004) notes the truism: "Another 

explanation for an omission could be that raising dead people was perceived as 

being very difficult to accomplish."


TVU 115 



NA 27 Matthew 10:11 eivj h]n dV a'n po,lin h' kw,mhn eivse,lqhte( evxeta,sate 

ti,j evn auvth/| a;xio,j evstin\ kavkei/ mei,nate e[wj a'n evxe,lqhteÅ 

omit: 

(D), f1, 700, it(a, b, d, ff 1 , h, k), Sy-S 

D: h` po,lij eivj h]n a'n eivse,lqhte eivj auvth,n 

word-order eivse,lqhte h' kw,mhn: L, 0281, f13, pc, Co 

22 has the words. 

aur, c, f, g 1 , l, q, vg have the words. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 10:14 kai. o]j a'n mh. de,xhtai u`ma/j mhde. avkou,sh| tou.j lo,gouj 

u`mw/n( evxerco,menoi e;xw th/j oivki,aj h' th/j po,lewj Þ evkei,nhj evktina,xate 

to.n koniorto.n tw/n podw/n u`mw/nÅ 

Þ h' kw,mhj P110, 01, 0281, f13, 892, pc, vg mss , Co 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 9:4 kai. eivj h]n a'n oivki,an eivse,lqhte( evkei/ me,nete kai. evkei/qen 

evxe,rcesqeÅ 

NA 27 Luke 10:8 kai. eivj h]n a'n po,lin eivse,rchsqe kai. de,cwntai u`ma/j( 

evsqi,ete ta. paratiqe,mena u`mi/n 

Compare: 


Kai. perih/gen o` VIhsou/j ta.j po,leij pa,saj kai. ta.j kw,maj dida,skwn 

NA 27 Mark 6:56 kai. o[pou a'n eivseporeu,eto eivj kw,maj h' eivj po,leij h' eivj 

avgrou,j( 

NA 27 Luke 8:1 Kai. evge,neto evn tw/| kaqexh/j kai. auvto.j diw,deuen kata. 

po,lin kai. kw,mhn khru,sswn kai. euvaggelizo,menoj th.n basilei,an tou/ 

qeou/ kai. oi` dw,deka su.n auvtw/|( 

NA 27 Luke 13:22 Kai. dieporeu,eto kata. po,leij kai. kw,maj dida,skwn 

The words have been added in verse 14 to harmonize with verse 11.

There is no reason for an omission, except as a harmonization to Lk. Compare 

next variant 10:12, where also a harmonization to Lk appears. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has only po,lin without kw,mhn for Q (= Lk). 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) thinks that D preserved the original reading. According to 

him h' kw,mhn is a pedantic addition based on the mention of villages in Lk 9:6 

and/or Mt 9:35. Also the reading eivj h]n dV a'n po,lin is a smoothing of the 

clumsy style of h` po,lij eivj h]n a'n eivse,lqhte eivj auvth,n read by D. 


TVU 116 



eivserco,menoi de. eivj th.n oivki,an avspa,sasqe auvth,n Þ 

Þ le,gontej eivrh,nh tw/| oi;kw| tou/tw| 

01*, D, L, W, Q, f1, 346(f13), 713, 22, 517, 1424, al, it, vg mss , arm, arab MS 

(not k, l) 

01: Tischendorf writes: "et B(?) et C uncis circumdederant, sed utriusque signa 

deleta sunt." 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: umlaut (line 26 C, p. 1246) auvth,n\ 13 kai. eva.n me.n h=| h` oivki,a 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 10:5 eivj h]n dV a'n eivse,lqhte 

eivrh,nh tw/| oi;kw| tou,tw|Å 

Clearly a harmonization to Lk. 

Rating: 2 (NA clearly original) 

oivki,an( prw/ton le,gete\ 

\

TVU 117 


NA 27 Matthew 10:13 kai. eva.n me.n h=| h` oivki,a avxi,a( evlqa,tw h` eivrh,nh u`mw/n 

evpV auvth,n( eva.n de. mh. h=| avxi,a( h` eivrh,nh u`mw/n pro.j u`ma/j evpistrafh,twÅ 

No txt in NA and SQE! 

evfV 01, B, W, 892, L2211, pc, WH 

txt C, D, L, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 700, 1424, Maj, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 10:6 kai. eva.n evkei/ h=| uiò.j eivrh,nhj( evpanapah,setai evpV auvto.n 

h` eivrh,nh u`mw/n\ eiv de. mh, ge( evfV u`ma/j avnaka,myeiÅ 

pro.j f13, 1424 

NA 27 Luke 1:16 kai. pollou.j tw/n ui`w/n VIsrah.l evpistre,yei evpi. ku,rion 

to.n qeo.n auvtw/nÅ pro.j U, f1, 565 

NA 27 Luke 1:17 … VHli,ou( evpistre,yai kardi,aj pate,rwn evpi. te,kna 

NA 27 Luke 17:4 kai. eva.n e`pta,kij th/j h`me,raj a`marth,sh| eivj se. kai. 

e`pta,kij evpistre,yh| pro.j se. le,gwn\ metanow/( avfh,seij auvtw/|Å 

evpi. f1 

Usage in the Greek Bible: LXX NT 

evpistre,fw pro.j 63 4 

evpistre,fw evpi. 26 7 

It is possible that evfV is a conformation to evpV auvth,n earlier in the verse or a 

harmonization to Lk. It is also possible that it is a conformation to the following 

evpistrafh,tw. There is no reason for a change from evpi. to pro.j, except 

common usage. 

IQP has evfV enclosed in double square brackets denoting that this 

reconstruction is "probable but uncertain". Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 93) has 

pro.j safe. 


TVU 118 


NA 27 Matthew 10:14 kai. o]j a'n mh. de,xhtai u`ma/j mhde. avkou,sh| tou.j lo,gouj 

u`mw/n( evxerco,menoi e;xw th/j oivki,aj h' th/j po,lewj Þ evkei,nhj 

evktina,xate to.n koniorto.n tw/n podw/n u`mw/nÅ 

omit th/j oivki,aj h': D, arm 

Þ h' kw,mhj P110, 01, 0281, f13, 892, pc, vg mss , Co 

omit evkei,nhj: P110, D, pc, Lat 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Luke 9:5 kai. o[soi a'n mh. de,cwntai u`ma/j( evxerco,menoi avpo. th/j 

po,lewj evkei,nhj to.n koniorto.n avpo. tw/n podw/n u`mw/n avpotina,ssete 

eivj martu,rion evpV auvtou,jÅ 

11 kai. o]j a'n to,poj mh. de,xhtai u`ma/j mhde. avkou,swsin u`mw/n( 

evkporeuo,menoi evkei/qen evktina,xate to.n cou/n to.n u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n 

u`mw/n eivj martu,rion auvtoi/jÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:35 Kai. perih/gen o` VIhsou/j ta.j po,leij pa,saj kai. ta.j 

kw,maj dida,skwn evn tai/j sunagwgai/j auvtw/n 



omit h' kw,mhn: f1, 700, it, Sy-S 

The omission by D is probably due to h.t. or it is a harmonization to Lk. 

The addition of h' kw,mhj is probably a harmonization to verse 11. 


TVU 119 



NA 27 Matthew 10:23 {Otan de. diw,kwsin u`ma/j evn th/| po,lei tau,th|( 

feu,gete eivj th.n e`te,ran\ 

T&T #30 

a;llhn C, X, D, S, F, 372, 579, 700, 2737, Maj, Cl, Basil(4 th CE) 

e`te,ran 01, B, W, 33, 892, 1192, 1424, pc 19 

pc = 265, 333, 423, 492, 527 C , 719, 822, 900, 935, 936, 1020, 

1227, 1253, 1289, 1532, 1541, 1602, 2147, 2372 

one of these: aur, c, f, l, vg, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co 

add: D, L, Q, f1, f13, 22, 565, 2786, pc 18 , 

it(a, b, d, ff 1 , g 1 , h, k, q), vg mss , Sy-S, arm, Or 

a;llhn\ eva,n de. evn th/| a;llh diw,kwsin u`ma/j feu,gete eivj th.n a;llhn 

D, 0171 vid , it, vg mss 

a;llhn\ ka'n evk tau,thj diw,kwsin u`ma/j feu,gete eivj th.n a;llhn 

565, 2145 C 

e`te,ran\ ka'n evk tau,thj diw,kwsin u`ma/j feu,gete eivj th.n a;llhn 

f1, f13, 22, pc 6 , Or! 

pc = 23, 134, 188, 375, 1166, 1595 

a;llhn\ ka'n evk tau,thj diw,kwsin u`ma/j feu,gete eivj th.n e`te,ran 

L, Q, 2786, pc 11 

pc = 163, 247, 934, 1193, 1229, 1314, 1353*, 1678, 2118, 2660, 2701 S 

L: evkdiw,xousin 

e`te,ran\ ka'n evn th/| e`te,ra| diw,kwsin u`ma/j feu,gete eivj th.n a;llhn 

Lachmann in square brackets (probably from the Latin) 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 10:10 eivj h]n dV a'n po,lin eivse,lqhte kai. mh. de,cwntai u`ma/j( 

evxelqo,ntej eivj ta.j platei,aj auvth/j ei;pate\ 

It could be a natural expansion: 

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the other, 

and when they persecute you in the other flee to the next." 

On the other hand it's quite possible that the long version is original. It could 

have been omitted due to h.t. or as being redundant. The support (D, L, f1, Lat, 

Sy-S, Or) is quite good. L is Byzantine in this part of Mt (block-mixed). 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) argues also along these lines and notes Tatian (Forsch. I, p. 

143) as additional witness. The words in Ephrem's commentary are (McCarthy): 

"Move away from whatever town you are not received in to another, and if they 

persecute you in that one, flee to [yet] another." 

This is a combination of Lk 10:10 and Mt 10:23: 

Lk 10:10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its 

streets and say, 

Mt 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; 

This is doubtful evidence for the longer reading. It is more probable that this is 

the result of Tatian conflating the two passages. Perhaps the long reading in the 

above witnesses goes back to Tatian's Diatessaron? Note that the Arabic 

Diatessaron has the short reading. 

The longer readings fits good (or better?) to the immediately following: 

avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n( ouv mh. tele,shte ta.j po,leij tou/ VIsrah.l e[wj a'n 

e;lqh| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

"you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." 

There are two possibilities for parablepsis. Either from the end-words a;llhn - 

a;llhn, or from feu,gete to feu,gete. If the D, 565 reading is original, a 

parablepsis from a;llhn to a;llhn would have produced the short variant with 

a;llhn. If the f1 reading is original a parablepsis from feu,gete to feu,gete 

would have produced the short variant with a;llhn, too. If the L reading is 

original a parablepsis from feu,gete to feu,gete would have produced the short 

variant with e`te,ran. It's very difficult to establish a convincing, all-explaining 

stemma for this evidence. 

The variation a;llhn - e`te,ran can be explained as idiom and in the long version 

as attempts to avoid repetition. 

In classical Greek a;lloj was used to designate "other" whenever there are 

several possibilities. e[teroj was used when there are only two possibilities. 

Therefore it is possible that atticising scribes changed e[teroj into a;lloj.

It is interesting that one has two different meanings of diw,kw in the two parts 

of the verse, first: 

diw,kwsin evn th/| po,lei "they persecute you in the city" 

but in the second part: 

diw,kwsin evk tau,thj "they drive you out of it" 

Tertullian is quoting this passage this way (De Fuga in Persecutione 6): 

"Cum coeperint, inquit, persequi vos, fugite de civitate in civitatem, … non 

consummabitis, inquit, civitates Israelis." which would be in Greek: 

{Otan de. a;rxwntai diw,kein u`ma/j( feu,gete evk po,lewj eivj po,lin ))) ouv 

mh. tele,shte ta.j po,leij tou/ VIsrah.l) 

Tertullian is not mentioning e[wj a'n e;lqh| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou. From his 

explanation one cannot deduce that he knew it. 

Difficult! 


TVU 120 



NA 27 Matthew 10:23 {Otan de. diw,kwsin u`ma/j evn th/| po,lei tau,th|( 

feu,gete eivj th.n e`te,ran\ avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n( ouv mh. tele,shte ta.j 

po,leij tou/ VIsrah.l e[wj a'n e;lqh| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

omit 01*, B, X, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj 

ou- 01 C2 , pc 

Tischendorf has additionally and correctly Codex X for the omission. This has 

been checked at the online PDF image. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 



NA 27 Mark 6:10 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\ o[pou eva.n eivse,lqhte eivj oivki,an( evkei/ 

me,nete e[wj a'n evxe,lqhte evkei/qenÅ 

Impossible to judge on internal grounds. Both forms occur in the NT, often with 

variation. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) thinks that a'n has been added from verse 11. 


TVU 121 


NA 27 Matthew 10:28 kai. mh. fobei/sqe avpo. tw/n avpoktenno,ntwn to. sw/ma( 

th.n de. yuch.n mh. duname,nwn avpoktei/nai\ fobei/sqe de. ma/llon to.n 

duna,menon kai. yuch.n kai. sw/ma avpole,sai evn gee,nnh|Å 

fobhqh/te B, D, W, Q, f1, 28, 33, 892, 1424, L2211, 

Maj-part[N, S, Y, W], WH 

txt fobei/sqe 01, C, L, f13, 565, 579, 700, 

Maj-part[F, K, P, M, U, G, D], NA 25 , Weiss, Robinson 

for the second fobei/sqe: 

Byz fobhqh/te D, L, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj 

txt fobei/sqe 01, B, C, W, 892, L2211, pc 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 10:26 Mh. ou=n fobhqh/te auvtou,j\ 

NA 27 Matthew 10:31 mh. ou=n fobei/sqe\ 

BYZ Matthew 10:31 mh. ou=n fobhqh/te( 

Byz fobhqh/te C, Q, f13, 22, 565, 579, 1424, Maj 

txt fobei/sqe 01, B, D, L, W, f1, 157, 892, L844, L2211, pc 

fobei/sqe imperative present middle 2nd person plural 

fobhqh/te subjunctive aorist passive 2nd person plural 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:4 Le,gw de. u`mi/n toi/j fi,loij mou( mh. fobhqh/te avpo. tw/n 

avpokteino,ntwn to. sw/ma kai. meta. tau/ta mh. evco,ntwn perisso,tero,n ti 

poih/saiÅ 12:5 u`podei,xw de. u`mi/n ti,na fobhqh/te\ fobh,qhte to.n meta. to. 

avpoktei/nai e;conta evxousi,an evmbalei/n eivj th.n ge,ennanÅ nai. le,gw 

u`mi/n( tou/ton fobh,qhteÅ 

NA 27 Luke 12:7 avlla. kai. ai` tri,cej th/j kefalh/j u`mw/n pa/sai 

hvri,qmhntaiÅ mh. fobei/sqe\ D: fobhqh/te 

The other occurrences of fobei/sqe/fobhqh/te in the Gospels are safe (11 

times).

It is especially noteworthy that the first occurrence of fobhqh/te, in Mt 10:26, 

is safe. If fobhqh/te would have caused any problems the main intervention 

point would have been here. It is therefore probable that it was the fobei/sqe 

that caused a problem and lead to a change in verse 28 and 31. 

IQP has fobei/sqe as safe for Q. So also Harnack. 


TVU 122 


NA 27 Matthew 10:28 kai. mh. fobei/sqe avpo. tw/n avpoktenno,ntwn to. sw/ma( 

th.n de. yuch.n mh. duname,nwn avpoktei/nai\ fobei/sqe de. ma/llon to.n 

duna,menon kai. yuch.n kai. sw/ma avpole,sai evn gee,nnh|Å 


avpokteino,ntwn B, WH, Bal 

txt avpoktenno,ntwn 01, C, D, U, W, D, Q, f1, 33, 700*, 892, pc, 

NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

avpokteno,ntwn L, N, f13, 28, 157, 565, 579, 700 C , 1071, 1424, Maj 

although Tischendorf notes for B "al pm"! 

B: no umlaut 

avpoktenno,ntwn participle present active genitive masculine plural 

avpokteino,ntwn same morph ! 

avpokteno,ntwn same morph ! 

Impossible to judge on internal grounds. txt is justified on external grounds. 

The B reading could have been inspired from the infinitive later in the verse. 

IQP has the double n in the text of Q, but one n enclosed in double square 

brackets denoting that this reconstruction is "probable but uncertain". 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) calls the double-n form "Aeolic-Alexandrinic". 


TVU 123 



NA 27 Matthew 10:33 o[stij dV a'n avrnh,shtai, me e;mprosqen tw/n 

avnqrw,pwn( avrnh,somai kavgw. auvto.n e;mprosqen tou/ patro,j mou tou/ evn 

Îtoi/jÐ ouvranoi/jÅ 

de, B, L, 1424, pc, WH, Trg 

txt 01, D, Q, f1, f13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1071, Maj, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 

dV a'n avparnh,shtai, Q, f1, f13, 565 

o[stij dV avparnh,shtai, C 

kai. o[stij avrnh,shtai, W 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:9 o` de. avrnhsa,meno,j me evnw,pion tw/n avnqrw,pwn 

avparnhqh,setai evnw,pion tw/n avgge,lwn tou/ qeou/Å 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:12 o[stij ga.r e;cei( doqh,setai auvtw/| kai. 

perisseuqh,setai\ o[stij de. ouvk e;cei( kai. o] e;cei avrqh,setai avpV auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 23:12 o[stij de. u`yw,sei eàuto.n tapeinwqh,setai kai. o[stij 

tapeinw,sei eàuto.n u`ywqh,setaiÅ 

o[stij de. appears two more times in Mt, but nowhere else in the Greek Bible. 

o[stij dV a'n appears nowhere else. 

o]j dV a'n 20 times 

o]j de. 19 times 

Difficult to judge on internal grounds. It is possible that de. has been changed 

into dV a'n to avoid Hiatus. 

IQP has o]j dV a'n safe. Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 97) has de, as safe for Q. 


TVU 124 


NA 27 Matthew 10:33 o[stij dV a'n avrnh,shtai, me e;mprosqen tw/n avnqrw,pwn( 

avrnh,somai kavgw. auvto.n e;mprosqen tou/ patro,j mou tou/ evn Îtoi/jÐ 

ouvranoi/jÅ 


1 avparnh,shtai, C, Q, f1, f13, 565 

2 avparnh,shtai, f1 

Tregelles (GNT) cites additionally Origen for both. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:9 o` de. avrnhsa,meno,j me evnw,pion tw/n avnqrw,pwn 

avparnhqh,setai evnw,pion tw/n avgge,lwn tou/ qeou/Å 

Probably from Lk. 


TVU 125 


NA 27 Matthew 10:34-35 Mh. nomi,shte o[ti h=lqon balei/n eivrh,nhn evpi. th.n 

gh/n\ ouvk h=lqon balei/n eivrh,nhn avlla. ma,cairanÅ 35 h=lqon ga.r 

dica,sai a;nqrwpon kata. tou/ patro.j auvtou/ kai. qugate,ra kata. th/j 

mhtro.j auvth/j kai. nu,mfhn kata. th/j penqera/j auvth/j( 

h=lqon meta. macai,rhj\ mae-2 

Sy-C reads: 

I have not come to lay tranquility in the earth, but division of minds and a sword. 

Sy-S reads txt. 

B: no umlaut 

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, …" 

mae-2: "I have come with a sword to set a man against his father, …" 

mae-2: An interesting variant, sounds like an interpretation of this rather 

difficult saying. 

For Sy-C compare: 

NA 27 Luke 12:51 dokei/te o[ti eivrh,nhn paregeno,mhn dou/nai evn th/| gh/|È 

ouvci,( le,gw u`mi/n( avllV h' diamerismo,nÅ 

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 


TVU 126 


NA 27 Matthew 10:37 ~O filw/n pate,ra h' mhte,ra u`pe.r evme. ouvk e;stin mou 

a;xioj( 

kai. o` filw/n uiò.n h' qugate,ra u`pe.r evme. ouvk e;stin mou a;xioj\ 

NA 27 Matthew 10:38 kai. o]j ouv lamba,nei to.n stauro.n auvtou/ kai. 

avkolouqei/ ovpi,sw mou( ouvk e;stin mou a;xiojÅ 

omit 37b: 

B C1 (= Tis: B 2 B*, D, 983, al, Sy-H, mae-2 

) added the clause at the bottom of the page (p. 1247 C). 

omit 38: 

omit 37b+38: 

B: no umlaut 

M*, pc 

P19(4th CE) 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 14:26-27 ei; tij e;rcetai pro,j me kai. ouv misei/ to.n pate,ra 

eàutou/ kai. th.n mhte,ra kai. th.n gunai/ka kai. ta. te,kna kai. tou.j 

avdelfou.j kai. ta.j avdelfa.j e;ti te kai. th.n yuch.n eàutou/( ouv du,natai 

ei=nai, mou maqhth,jÅ 27 o[stij ouv basta,zei to.n stauro.n eàutou/ kai. 

e;rcetai ovpi,sw mou( ouv du,natai ei=nai, mou maqhth,jÅ 

Very probably h.t. 

Compare: 

K. Köhler "Zu Mt 10:37f." ZNW 16 (1917) 270-72 

[he mentions two sources (Cyprian and Tertullian) who cite the verse in a 

combination of Mt and Lk: kai. o` filw/n th.n yuch.n eàutou/( u`pe.r evme. …] 


TVU 127 


NA 27 Matthew 10:42 kai. o]j a'n poti,sh| e[na tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn poth,rion 

yucrou/ mo,non eivj o;noma maqhtou/( avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( ouv mh. avpole,sh| 

to.n misqo.n auvtou/Å 

yucro,j "cold" or "cold water" 

u[datoj yucrou/ D, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co, Or 

yucrou/ u[datoj Cl 

u[datoj yucrou/ mo,non 

aquae frigidae tantum 

yucrou/n mo,non 

Lat, Sy-Pal ms , arm, geo 1, A , goth, Or 

M, Z, 2*, 33, 157, 565, al 

Or? (Catena-manuscript Coisl. 20): … o dV eti mikroj kai nhpioj en 

Cristw wj poimainomenoj udatoj anapausewj deitai) taca de kai oi 

mikroi men wsper udwr outw kai yucron pinousin( oi de zeontej tw 

pneumati qermon( oudeteroi de to yekton cliaron) 

Or Mt-Comm tom. 14:8 line 28f.: kai. ei; pote, tij evpo,tise "poth,rion 

u[datoj yucrou/ mo,non eivj o;noma maqhtou/\" 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:41 }Oj ga.r a'n poti,sh| u`ma/j poth,rion u[datoj evn ovno,mati 

o[ti Cristou/ evste( avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti ouv mh. avpole,sh| to.n misqo.n 

auvtou/Å 

An interesting combination of witnesses, many versions, but only one Greek 

manuscript: D. The question is if all the versions really support the reading. Both 

readings mean essentially the same and it is not clear if the versions go back to 

a different Greek text. 


TVU 128 


NA 27 Matthew 10:42 kai. o]j a'n poti,sh| e[na tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn poth,rion 

yucrou/ mo,non eivj o;noma maqhtou/( avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( 

ouv mh. avpole,sh| to.n misqo.n auvtou/Å 

"he will not lose his reward." 

ouv mh. avpo,lhtai o` misqo.j auvtou/ D, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo, mae-2, Cyp, 

non peribit merces eius. (a, b, c, d, g 1 , h, k, q) 

"not will be lost his reward." 

Lat(aur, f, ff 1 , l, vg) read txt. 

B: no umlaut 

Bois 

Compare previous verses: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:40 ~O deco,menoj u`ma/j evme. de,cetai( kai. o` evme. deco,menoj 

de,cetai to.n avpostei,lanta, meÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 10:41 o` deco,menoj profh,thn eivj o;noma profh,tou misqo.n 

profh,tou lh,myetai( kai. o` deco,menoj di,kaion eivj o;noma dikai,ou 

misqo.n dikai,ou lh,myetaiÅ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:41 }Oj ga.r a'n poti,sh| u`ma/j poth,rion u[datoj evn ovno,mati 

o[ti Cristou/ evste( avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti 

ouv mh. avpole,sh| to.n misqo.n auvtou/Å 

In the previous verses always the accusative is used. The txt reading could be a 

harmonization to context or to Mk 9:41. 

Is the reading of the versions clear in all cases? 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 65) notes that the emendators tended to change to the 

middle voice. 


TVU 129 


NA 27 Matthew 11:1 Kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j diata,sswn toi/j 

dw,deka maqhtai/j auvtou/( mete,bh evkei/qen tou/ dida,skein kai. khru,ssein 

evn tai/j po,lesin auvtw/nÅ 

Not in NA, SQE, Greeven, Tis! 

omit: f1, 22, pc, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:1 Kai. proskalesa,menoj tou.j dw,deka maqhta.j 

mae-2 omits dw,deka here too 

NA 27 Matthew 10:2 Tw/n de. dw,deka avposto,lwn ta. ovno,mata, evstin tau/ta\ 

here mae-2 has dw,deka. 

NA 27 Matthew 20:17 Kai. avnabai,nwn o` VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma 

pare,laben tou.j dw,deka Îmaqhta.jÐ katV ivdi,an kai. evn th/| o`dw/| ei=pen 

auvtoi/j\ 

here mae-2 has dw,deka. 

NA 27 Luke 22:14 Kai. o[te evge,neto h` w[ra( avne,pesen kai. 

oi` avpo,stoloi su.n auvtw/|Å 

BYZ Luke 22:14 Kai. o[te evge,neto h` w[ra avne,pesen kai. 

oi` dw,deka avpo,stoloi su.n auvtw/| 

Byz 01 C2 , A, C, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

Lat(aur, f, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, arm, Marcion E 

txt P75, 01*, B, D, 157, pc, it, Sy-C, sa 

oi` dw,deka 01 C1 , L, X, 1071, 1241, pc, sa mss 

oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ Sy-S 

The term dw,deka maqhtai/j appears only in Mt: 10:1; 11:1; 20:17. It is 

therefore rather unusual and it is possible that dw,deka has accidentally been 

omitted. 


TVU 130 





VIhsou/ D, 0233, 517, 1071, 954, 1424, pc, Sy-C, Or 

Legg adds: 047, 7, 99, 262, 348, 349, 483, 484, 659, 1579, 1604 

kuri,ou h`mw/n Sy-S 

omit ta. e;rga tou/ Cristou/ mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Origen, Mt Comm tom. 10:20 line 18: o[ti VIwa,nnhj evn tw/| desmwthri,w| 

tugca,nwn avkou,saj ta. peri. tou/ VIhsou/( pe,myaj duo. tw/n maqhtw/n 

auvtou/ … 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:18 Kai. avph,ggeilan VIwa,nnh| oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ peri. pa,ntwn 

tou,twnÅ kai. proskalesa,menoj du,o tina.j tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ o` 

VIwa,nnhj 

"Christ" has not been used so far in the Gospel, except for the birth narrative. 

The next occurrence is in 16:16 with Peter saying: "You are the Christ, the Son 

of the living God." 

It is probably at least in part (note the Byzantine minuscules) an accidental 

error. 


TVU 131 



BYZ Matthew 11:2 ~O de. VIwa,nnhj avkou,saj evn tw/| desmwthri,w| ta. e;rga 

tou/ Cristou/ pe,myaj du,o tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ 

Byz C C , L, X, f1, f13 a,c , 22, 157, 565, 579, 700, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), Sy-Pal, bo, geo 2A , goth, Or pt 

txt 01, B, C*, D, P, W, Z, D, Q, P C , 0233, 124, 174, 788(=f13 b ), 33, pc, 

it(a, b, c, f, h, k, q), vg ms , Sy, sa, mae-1, arm, geo 1+B , Or pt 

Or? (Catena-manuscript Athos, Lawra B 113): … maqei/n dia. tw/n maqhtw/n 

mou bou,lomai( po,teron su. ei= o` evrco,menoj … 

Or Mt Comm tom. 10:20 line 18: o[ti VIwa,nnhj evn tw/| desmwthri,w| 

tugca,nwn avkou,saj ta. peri. tou/ VIhsou/( pe,myaj duo. tw/n maqhtw/n 

auvtou/ … 

Chrys (hom 36): dia. tou/to du,o mo,nouj avpe,steilen … 

Both Sy-S and Sy-C don't have duo. (not in NA). 

mae-2 has a lacuna! 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:18 Kai. avph,ggeilan VIwa,nnh| oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ peri. pa,ntwn 

tou,twnÅ kai. proskalesa,menoj du,o tina.j tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ o` 

VIwa,nnhj omit du,o: e 

The txt reading has very good support. 

Possibly the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to Lk (so Weiss), although it is 

also possible that the txt reading is a very early error. What was in Q? IQP's 

Crit. ed. has dia. for Q. 

John Kloppenborg comments (private communication 03/2002): 

The usual reasons for excluding Luke's DUO has to do with his preference elsewhere for pairs: 

two on the road to Emmaus; two angels at the resurrection; etc. Matthew's DIA, is not suspect 

as redactional, and is required (or something like it) as TWN MAQHTWN AUTWN is to be kept 

in the genitive. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, 1907, p. 64) thinks that pe,myaj dia. makes the more 

original impression, compared to the Lukan proskalesa,menoj du,o.




TVU 132 




kai. ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai\ 

omit: k, Sy-S, Diatess 

Note: Sy-C has the words before kai. nekroi. evgei,rontai. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:22 kai. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ poreuqe,ntej avpaggei,late 

VIwa,nnh| a] ei;dete kai. hvkou,sate\ tufloi. avnable,pousin( cwloi. 

peripatou/sin( leproi. kaqari,zontai kai. kwfoi. avkou,ousin( nekroi. 

evgei,rontai( ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai\ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 16:16 ~O no,moj kai. oi` profh/tai me,cri VIwa,nnou\ avpo. to,te h` 

basilei,a tou/ qeou/ euvaggeli,zetai kai. pa/j eivj auvth.n bia,zetaiÅ 

Probably an error due to h.t. (ontai - ontai). 

Burkitt notes that the Diatessaron also probably did not contain the phrase. He 

then writes (Evangelion – Intro, p. 238): 

"Internal evidence is very strongly in favor of the omission of kai. ptwcoi. 

euvaggeli,zontai. The verb euvaggeli,zontai is not found in Mt outside this 

passage; on the other hand, it is one of the favorite words of Lk and actually 

occurs in Lk 16:16 with the same passive use as here [25 times in Lk/Acts but 

nowhere else in the Gospels]. Probably therefore its introduction into this 

context is due to the evangelist: 'the dead arise' in the reply of our Lord to 

John's messengers has no doubt the same significance as 'raise the dead' in Mt 

10:8. In other words, the true text of the First Gospel, as preserved in S and 

the Diatessaron, supported by k and Clement, gives us the words of Jesus: 'the 

poor have the Gospel preached to them' is Luke's interpretation of the words, 

an interpretation which we may safely accept." 

Ephrem in his commentary writes (McCarthy): "Jesus said to them, Go and make 

known to John, not what you have heard, but what you have seen. For behold, the 

blind see, and the lame walk. … Thus, [the Lord] began with those things which 

appeared to be of lesser importance, even though, in the case of the miracles, 

little and great are of equal worth. The blind see and the lame walk, lepers are

cleansed and the deaf hear. Finally, as a seal upon all these, he introduced the 

dead are raised up, which is the most important of the good deeds of the Only- 

Begotten. This was a dissolution and an abolition of the evil deeds that Adam 

had introduced into the world. Along with these, you should learn this: Blessed is 

he who is not scandalized on account of me. [Mt 11:6]" 

With explicitely mentioning the dead are raised up as "a seal", it is very 

improbable that Ephrem left out kai. ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai. He then 

continues to verse 6. 

The IQP has kai. ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai as safe for Q in its critical edition. 

So also Harnack. 


TVU 133 

42. 

NA 27 Difficult variant 

Matthew 11:8 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/n a;nqrwpon evn malakoi/j 

hvmfiesme,nonÈ ivdou. oi` ta. malaka. forou/ntej evn toi/j oi;koij 

tw/n basile,wn eivsi,nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 11:8 avlla. ti, evxh,lqete ivdei/n a;nqrwpon evn malakoi/j 

i`mati,oij hvmfiesme,nonÈ ivdou. oi` ta. malaka. forou/ntej evn toi/j oi;koij 

tw/n basileiw/n eivsi,nÅ 

Byz C, L, P, W, X, D, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, b, f, h, l, Sy, Co, goth 

txt 01, B, D, Z, pc, Lat(a, aur, c, d, ff 1 , g 1 , k, q, vg) 

Minority variant, mae-2: evn tw/| oi;kw| tw/n basile,wn eivsi,nÅ 

B: no umlaut 

ta. malaka. as a substantive: "luxurious clothes, soft raiment" 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:25 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ a;nqrwpon evn malakoi/j i`mati,oij 

hvmfiesme,nonÈ ivdou. oi` evn i`matismw/| evndo,xw| kai. trufh/| u`pa,rcontej evn 

toi/j basilei,oij eivsi,nÅ 

Either the addition of i`mati,oij is a harmonization to Lk (so Weiss) or the 

omission is a h.t. error: OIS - OIS. It is also possible that the omission is a 

conformation to ta. malaka. later in the verse, taking malakoi/j substantivally. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Matthean evn malakoi/j hvmfiesme,non for Q. So also 

Harnack. 




TVU 134 


NA 27 Matthew 11:8 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/n a;nqrwpon evn malakoi/j 

hvmfiesme,nonÈ ivdou. oi` ta. malaka. forou/ntej evn toi/j oi;koij 

tw/n basile,wn eivsi,nÅ 

T&T #32 

omit eivsi,n 01*, B, WH, Tis, NA 25 , Weiss, Bal 

B: no umlaut 

01: corrected by 01 C2 . 

Tis has the word. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:25 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ a;nqrwpon evn malakoi/j i`mati,oij 

hvmfiesme,nonÈ ivdou. oi` evn i`matismw/| evndo,xw| kai. trufh/| u`pa,rcontej evn 

toi/j basilei,oij eivsi,nÅ 

Next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 11:9 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ profh,thnÈ 

I think this is grammatically correct only if we take ivdou. as the verb: 

"Look at those who wear soft robes in royal palaces." 

txt translates: 

"Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces." 


omission probably wrong.

TVU 135 




avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ profh,thnÈ 

avlla. ti, evxh,lqateÈ profh,thn ivdei/nÈ 

01*, B C1 , W, Z, 0281, 892, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg mg , Tis, Bal, SBL 

txt 01 C1 , (B*), C, D, L, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa 

The listing of B in NA is problematic. NA lists B C1 for profh,thn ivdei/n and B* 

for ivdei/n profh,thn. I have checked this at the facsimile. p. 1248 B 5: There 

are two dots above the p of profh,thn, which may indicate that the scribe 

wanted to write first a Iota (of ivdei/n), but then noted his error and changed it 

into p. Nothing else can be seen except the two dots. It is not clear whether 

he wrote anything more than the Iota. 

Tischendorf writes: "litterae prof rescriptae et sub p latet i?. Hinc sine dubio 

scriptor i?dein ante prof. daturus erat." 

At the right margin there is a small check of unknown meaning: ¬ 

NA has B C2 for the txt reading, too, but this is probably an error in NA. Or is it 

possible that NA interpreted the two dots above the p as "read second"? 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:24 ti, evxh,lqate eivj th.n e;rhmon qea,sasqaiÈ ka,lamon ... 

NA 27 Luke 7:25 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ a;nqrwpon ... 

NA 27 Luke 7:26 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ profh,thnÈ 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 11:7 ti, evxh,lqate eivj th.n e;rhmon qea,sasqaiÈ ka,lamon … 

NA 27 Matthew 11:8 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ a;nqrwpon … 

NA 27 Matthew 11:9 avlla. ti, evxh,lqate ivdei/nÈ profh,thnÈ 

Compare Gospel of Thomas, Logion 78: 

"Because of what (= why) did you come out to the field? To see a reed shaken by 

the wind? And to see a man having soft garments on, like your kings and your 

powerful ones?" 

Backtranslation: ti, evxh,lqate eivj to.n avgro,nÈ qea,sasqai ka,lamon 

saleuo,menon u`po. tou/ avne,mouÈ kai. qea,sasqai a;nqrwpon ...

In Lk the words are safe. 

The txt reading fits good into the context. It is possible that the txt reading is 

a conformation to the previous verse (so Weiss). 

There would have been no reason to change the txt reading into the 01* reading. 

The error in B indicates that scribes expected ivdei/n after evxh,lqate, possibly 

as a harmonization to Lk. 

Metzger takes a different view: "The textual problem is complicated by the 

possibility of taking ti, as meaning either 'what?' or 'why?'. ... In verse 9 the 

committee decided that the reading ivdei/n profh,thn, which involves the 

previously mentioned ambiguity, is more likely to be original than the reading 

profh,thn ivdei/n, which, in the context, has to be taken in only one way, namely 

"Why then did you go out? To see a prophet?" 

The Gospel of Thomas takes ti. as "why?". 

IQP has ivdei/nÈ profh,thnÈ but with a / between the words indicating 

differences in word order. 

Harnack has the WH reading avlla. ti, evxh,lqateÈ profh,thn ivdei/nÈ as safe 

for Q (Sprüche Jesu, p. 15, 92). 

Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong)

TVU 136 

NA 27 Matthew 11:15 o` e;cwn w=ta avkoue,twÅ 

BYZ Matthew 11:15 o` e;cwn w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,tw 





11:15 

Byz 01, C, L, W, X, Z, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, goth, Justin (Dial 51:3), [Trg] 

txt B, D, 174(f13), 700, pc, d, k, Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

13:9 

Byz 01 C2 , C, D, W, X, Z, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, [Trg] 

txt 01*, B, L, a, e, ff 1 , k, Sy-S (Legg adds: 1241) 

13:43 

Byz 01 C2 , C, D, L, W, X, D, 0106, 0233, 0250, f1, f13, 33, Maj, it, Sy, Co, [Trg] 

txt 01*, B, Q, 0242, 700, Lat(a, b, e, k, vg) 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:9 o]j e;cei w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,twÅ 

NA 27 Mark 4:23 ei; tij e;cei w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,twÅ 

NA 27 Mark 8:18 kai. w=ta e;contej ouvk avkou,eteÈ 

NA 27 Luke 8:8 o` e;cwn w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,twÅ 


The omission is difficult to explain, the addition is not: It is inspired by the 

fuller expression in Mk and Lk. 

See also Mt 25:29. 


TVU 137 


NA 27 Matthew 11:16 Ti,ni de. o`moiw,sw th.n genea.n tau,thnÈ o`moi,a evsti.n 

paidi,oij Þ kaqhme,noij evn tai/j avgorai/j a] prosfwnou/nta toi/j e`te,roij 

BYZ Matthew 11:16 Ti,ni de. o`moiw,sw th.n genea.n tau,thn o`moi,a evsti.n 

paidi,oij evn avgorai/j kaqhme,noij kai. prosfwnou/sin toi/j e`tai,roij 

auvtw/n( 


Þ evn avgora/| (without omission after kaqhme,noij) f1 

B: no umlaut 

It is possible that in the exemplar of f1 it was intended to move the term from 

the latter to the former position. For some reason the omission at the latter 

position did not happen. 

There is evidence for this change: 

o`moi,a evsti.n paidi,oij evn avgora/| kaqhme,noij ... 

1071, 1582 C 

o`moi,a evsti.n paidi,oij evn avgorai/j kaqhme,noij ... 

118 

1582: The words evn tai/j avgorai/j are normal in the text, but there are dots 

above them, indicating deletion. 


TVU 138 

44. 


Matthew 11:17 le,gousin\ 

huvlh,samen u`mi/n kai. ouvk wvrch,sasqe( 

evqrhnh,samen kai. ouvk evko,yasqeÅ 

BYZ Matthew 11:17 kai. le,gousin 

huvlh,samen u`mi/n kai. ouvk wvrch,sasqe 

evqrhnh,samen u`mi/n( kai. ouvk evko,yasqe 

T&T #33 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, Q, S, F, f13, 22, 33, 118, Maj, 

it(a, b, ff 2 , h, q), vg mss , Sy 

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, 372, 892, 2737, pc 13 , 

Lat(aur, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , k, l, vg), Co(+ mae-2), goth 

pc = 47, 54, 67, 248, 279, 535, 1061, 1068*, 1132, 1254, 1543, 2586, 2623 

B: no umlaut 

Same in Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 7:32 

huvlh,samen u`mi/n kai. ouvk wvrch,sasqe( 

evqrhnh,samen kai. ouvk evklau,sateÅ 

BYZ Luke 7:32 

huvlh,samen u`mi/n kai. ouvk wvrch,sasqe 

evqrhnh,samen u`mi/n kai. ouvk evklau,sate 

Byz A, Y, f1, 33, Maj, it(a, b, f, ff 2 , q), Sy 

txt 01, B, D, L, W, Q, X, f13, 892, 1241, 1342, pc, 

Lat(aur, c, d, e, g 1 , l, r 1 , vg), Co, arm 

It is difficult to imagine why u`mi/n would have been omitted by so many diverse 

witnesses, except for stylistic reasons. That several Byzantine minuscules 

support the shorter form points in that direction. 

On the other hand it could have been inserted for the sake of parallelism (so 

Weiss). Interestingly the same variation occurs in Lk, with similarly good 

support. 

The IQP has the form without u`mi/n as safe for Q in its critical edition. So also 

Harnack.




TVU 139 


NA 27 Matthew 11:18 h=lqen ga.r Þ 

le,gousin\ daimo,nion e;ceiÅ 

Þ pro.j u`ma/j 

"to it" 

B: no umlaut 

VIwa,nnhj mh,te evsqi,wn mh,te pi,nwn( kai. 

L, Q, f13, 517, 1675, al, Sy-C, Sy-H, mae-2 

L omits ga.r 

vid , Eus 

Sy-S (Burkitt), it = this generation? 

Compare context, previous verse 17: 

NA 27 Matthew 11:17 le,gousin\ huvlh,samen u`mi/n 

evqrhnh,samen kai. ouvk evko,yasqeÅ 

kai. ouvk wvrch,sasqe( 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 21:32 h=lqen ga.r VIwa,nnhj pro.j u`ma/j evn o`dw/| dikaiosu,nhj( 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:33 evlh,luqen ga.r VIwa,nnhj o` baptisth.j mh. evsqi,wn a;rton 

mh,te pi,nwn oi=non( kai. le,gete\ daimo,nion e;ceiÅ 

There is no reason for an omission. A harmonization to Lk by omission is rather 

improbable. Probably added from context or from Mt 21:32. 


TVU 140 

45. 


Matthew 11:19 kai. evdikaiw,qh h` sofi,a avpo. tw/n e;rgwn auvth/jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 11:19 kai. evdikaiw,qh h` sofi,a avpo. tw/n te,knwn auvth/j 

T&T #34 

Byz B C2 , C, D, L, X, D, Q, S, F, f1, 22, 33, 174 (=f13), 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-H mg , sa, mae-1, goth, Trg mg 

Minority readings: 

avpo. (tw/n) te,knwn auvtw/n 165, 1536, 2290 

avpo. pantw/n tw/n te,knwn auvth/j 13, 346, 543, 826, 828, 983 (=f13), k 

avpo. tw/n te,knwn auvth/j pantw/n 2680, pc 5 

txt 01, B*, W, 124, 788(=f13), 202, 1319, 2145, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, Or? 


avpo. pantw/n tw/n e;rgwn auvth/j 124, 788 (=f13) 

Origen? (Catena-manuscript Athos Lawra B 113): avpo. e;rgwn kata. sofi,an 

evpiteloumenwn dikaiou/tai ma/llon h' avpo. lo,gwn sofi,a) 

Jerome (Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei 11:19): "In quibusdam euangeliis 

legitur: Iustificata est sapientia ab operibus suis. Sapientia quippe non quaerit 

uocis testimonium sed operum." 

In some Gospels it reads: Wisdom is justified by her works. Indeed, wisdom does not seek the 

testimony of words but of deeds. 

In B e;rgwn is left unenhanced and te,knwn is written in uncial in the left 

margin (line 12 C, p. 1248), acc. to Tischendorf by B 3 (= enhancer). 

The notation of k in NA is misleading: k reads "ab omnibus filis suis". In NA it is 

noted for pantw/n tÅ e;rgÅ, but in brackets, the agreement meant by NA is on 

the "omnibus" not the e;rgwn. 


B: no umlaut 

txt Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." 

Byz Yet wisdom is vindicated by her children." 

(Minority reading: "by their children.")

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 7:35 kai. evdikaiw,qh h` sofi,a avpo. pa,ntwn tw/n te,knwn auvth/jÅ 

tw/n e;rgwn auvth/j 01 C 

Compare: 



The Arabic Diatessaron is citing the verse with te,knwn. The passage has been 

taken from Lk. Verses 7:31-35 are cited in a row (chapter 14). 

A very difficult word. 

Possibly te,knwn is a harmonization to Lk (so Weiss). This is supported by the 

addition of pantw/n by some witnesses (f13, k). 

That scribes found the clause difficult to understand is shown by the fact that 

three witnesses read avpo. $tw/n% te,knwn auvtw/n. This refers back to "this 

generation" (11:16), probably "the unbelieving Jews". 

The real meaning is: The plan of God is justified by results. The Lukan reading 

personifies wisdom, thus the meaning is essentially the same. 

It is strange that the support for e;rgwn is quite slim. But if it's not original, 

where does it come from? Possibly scribes had a difficulty with te,knwn and 

they changed it to e;rgwn inspired by Mt 11:2? 

There is a possibility that this is a translation from Aramaic: 

abadeh = "her works" 

abdeh = "her servants" 

But the normal translation of the latter would be pai/dej and not te,knwn. And 

what does this help to clarify what Mt wrote? 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the Lukan te,knwn for Q safe. Zahn (Comm. Mat.) thinks that 

e;rgwn was the original word in the saying. Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 18) to the 

contrary thinks that only te,knwn makes sense and e;rgwn being factually 

incomprehensible. He suggests that a thoughtless scribe was perhaps lead to 

e;rga from evdikaiw,qh. 

Note that 3 rather unimportant Byzantine minuscules (202, 1319, 2145) support 

txt. 

R. Leivestad JBL 71 (1952) 179-81 ("An interpretation of Mt 11:19") suggests 

that "Wisdom is justified by her deeds" was a Jewish proverb like "The tree is 

known by its fruits". The "wisdom" here "is that of the Jews, that self-wise,

self-sufficient neutrality, which is always ready to find a plausible excuse for 

not repenting." 

Compare also: 

Barth "Die Rechtfertigung der Weisheit Mt 11:19" TSK 66 (1893) 591-95 and an 

addition in TSK 67 (1894) 617-21. 

Barth argues that avpo. is meant as a separation: "Wisdom is justified away from 

her works/products." This is meant as: The finest products of wisdom are Jesus 

and John. Now the Jews have managed (by their justifications, verses 18-19a) to 

separate wisdom from her products (Jesus and John). 

This idea has been revived by S. Gatherpole "The Justification of Wisdom (Matt 

11.19b/Luke 7.35)", NTS 49 (2003) 476-488 

Compare also the discussion of Zahn (in his "Einleitung" and in his commentary) 

to the passage. 


TVU 141 


NA 27 Matthew 11:23 kai. su,( Kafarnaou,m( mh. e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È 

e[wj a[|dou katabh,sh|\ o[ti eiv evn Sodo,moij evgenh,qhsan ai` duna,meij ai` 

geno,menai evn soi,( e;meinen a'n me,cri th/j sh,meronÅ 

BYZ Matthew 11:23 kai. su, Kapernaou,m( h` e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqei/sa( 

e[wj a[|dou katabibasqh,sh|\ o[ti eiv evn Sodo,moij evge,nonto ai` duna,meij 

ai` geno,menai evn soi, e;meinan a'n me,cri th/j sh,meron 

Byz K, P*, N, f13, 33, 157, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1424, Maj, 

f, h, q, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, Chrys 

h` e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqei/sa K, P*, M, N, 983, 33, 

579, 892, 1071, 1424, Maj-part, 

h` e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqei/sa X, D, 157, 124, pc 

h] e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`yw,qhj E, F, G, S, U, V, Y, G, Pmg , 118, 209(=f1), 

f13 a , 700, 1342, Maj-part 

h] e[wj ouvranou/ u`yw,qhj 28, 788, Weiss 

txt 01, B, C, D, L, W, Y, Q, f1, 22, 372, pc, 

Lat, Sy-C, Co, arm, geo, Ir Lat , Hier 

mh. e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È C, Y, f1, 22 

h] e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sei L 

h] e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È B C 

ouv mh. e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh| coj. A. Pallis (1932) 

The reading of D* in Tischendorf (h for mh, as B C ) is probably an error. In 

the facsimile nothing like this can be seen. The mh is clearly present without 

correction. But D* then continues (with L) h] e[wj a[|dou ... 

B: umlaut! (line 28 C, p. 1248) Kafarnaou,m( mh. e[wj ouvranou/ 

The M of MH is left unenhanced. u`ywqh,sh| is not changed. 

Jerome (Comm. Matt. 11:23): 

Et tu Capharnaum numquid usque in caelum exaltaueris? usque in infernum 

descendens. In altero exemplari repperimus: Et tu Capharnaum quae usque in 

caelum exaltata es, usque ad inferna descendes. 

"And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted up to heaven? You will descend into the nether world." 

In another copy we have found: "And you Capernaum, you who have been exalted up to heaven, 

you will descend to the nether world."

Same in the parallel Lk 10:15 

Byz A, C, W, Q, Y, 0115, (f1), f13, 33, 892, 1342, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, arm 

h` e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqei/sa C, 157, 2542, pc 

h] e[wj ouvranou/ u`yw,qhj Tis, Weiss 

txt P45, P75, 01, B*, D, (L, X, 579, 700, 1071), pc, it, Sy-C, Sy-S, Co 

mh. e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È L, X, 579, 700, 1071, Gre (in Mt: txt) 

h] e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È 1, 22, 1582*? 

h] e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`yw,qhj 1582, B C3-A ? 

mh. e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sei B C3-B ? 

The corrections of B are not clear, see Lk for a discussion. 

u`ywqh,sh| verb indicative future passive 2nd person singular 

"And you, Capernaum, (do you think) you will be exalted to heaven?" 

u`ywqei/sa participle aorist passive nominative feminine singular 

"And you, Capernaum, the exalted to heaven," 

u`ywqh/|j verb subjunctive aorist passive 2nd person singular 

"And you, Capernaum, which has been exalted to heaven," 

h` article, "the" 

h] relative pronoun, "which" 

The question is if it is either mh. ... u`ywqh,sh| or h` ... u`ywqei/sa. 

KAFARNAOUMMH 

KAFARNAOUMH 

The letter M might have been (accidentally) dropped and then the verb has been 

changed, resulting in a more normal statement. On the other hand the letter 

could also have been (accidentally) duplicated. 

The evidence is extremely confused. 

Weiss, who favors the h` ... u`ywqh/|j reading which is basically the same meaning 

as Byz, says, the only possible intention here can be a positive statement ("you 

have been exalted"). Capernaum was the center of Jesus mission. He thinks that 

a negative statement (with mh.) makes no sense in context. The context requires 

a statement of preference for Capernaum though. The txt reading must then be 

due to accidental doubling of the M in Capernaum and then a change from 

u`ywqh/|j to u`ywqh,sh|. The many good witnesses require a very early error.

On the other hand, as Metzger argues, it is also possible that scribes got 

confused about the "unexpected turn of expression, ... [which] is a sharp and 

startling interrogation, entirely in the manner of Jesus' use of vivid language". 

IQP's Crit. ed. has txt: mh. e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh| safe. So also Harnack. 

The support for the Byzantine reading is not very good. 

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) suggests that an ouv fell out due to the double 

oumoum in: 

kafarnaoumoumhews 

giving the meaning: "and you Capernaum, you shall not be exalted unto heaven." 




TVU 142 

47. 


Matthew 11:23 kai. su,( Kafarnaou,m( mh. e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È 

e[wj a[|dou katabh,sh|\ 

BYZ Matthew 11:23 kai. su, Kapernaou,m( h` e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ u`ywqei/sa( 

e[wj a[|dou katabibasqh,sh|\ 

T&T #35 

Byz 01, C, L, X, D, Q, S, F, f1, f13, 22, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, bo, Gre 

txt B, D, W, 163, 372, 2680, 2737, Latt, Sy-C, Sy-S, sa, Ir lat 

katablhqh,sh pc 9 (kataba,llw) 

katenecqh,sh pc 4 (katafe,rw) 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 10:15 kai. su,( Kafarnaou,m( mh. e[wj ouvranou/ u`ywqh,sh|È e[wj 

tou/ a[|dou katabh,sh|Å 

BYZ Luke 10:15 ... e[wj a[|dou katabibasqh,sh|Å 

Byz P45, 01, A, C, L, W, Q, X, Y, 0115, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt P75, B, D, 579, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C 

katabh,sh| katabai,nw indicative future middle 2nd person singular 

come or go down, descend; fall, fall down; 

katabibasqh,sh| katabiba,zw indicative future passive 2nd person singular 

throw down, bring down 

u`ywqh,sh| indicative future passive 2nd person singular 

Compare: 

LXX Isaiah 14:15 nu/n de. eivj a[|dou katabh,sh| kai. eivj ta. qeme,lia th/j gh/j 

katabiba,zw is a rare word. It appears only here and in the Lukan parallel in the 

Bible. On the other hand *biba,zw appears 102 times and is not so rare. It is 

possible that scribes harmonized the passage to the Isaiah parallel.

The support for katabh,sh| is not that good. I am not sure if one can establish 

with certainty what Latt and Sy read in their Greek exemplars. 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) suggests that katabh,sh| perhaps comes from Isa 14:15. 

Carl Conrad wrote on B-Greek: Re: Matthew 11:23 KATABHSH (9. Nov 2001) 

"It sure looks to me like what we have in the critical text--KATABHSHi--is a future middle in a 

surviving MP sense that is really passive, and that the scribes have CORRECTED it into a 

corresponding future passive of the causative KATABIBAZW. So, yes, this form should be 

understood as future passive 2nd sg., and it looks like pretty good evidence that the form 

KATABHSHi was understood as having a passive sense, but some grammarian found fault with it 

because he felt that it ought to be expressed with an authentically passive verb." 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 46) likewise thinks that the katabibasqh,sh| is a 

conformation to u`ywqh,sh|. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has katabh,sh| for Q. So also Harnack. 


TVU 143 


NA 27 Matthew 11:29 a;rate to.n zugo,n mou evfV u`ma/j kai. ma,qete avpV evmou/( 

o[ti prau

TVU 144 


NA 27 Matthew 12:2 oi` de. Farisai/oi ivdo,ntej ei=pan auvtw/|\ ivdou. oi` 

maqhtai, sou poiou/sin o] ouvk e;xestin poiei/n evn sabba,tw|Å 

omit: (ff 1 ), k, Sy-S, Sy-C, Bois 

ff 1 omits poiei/n evn sabba,tw|Å 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:24 i;de ti, poiou/sin toi/j sa,bbasin o] ouvk e;xestinÈ 

NA 27 Luke 6:2 ti, poiei/te o] ouvk e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasinÈ 

BYZ Luke 6:2 ti, poiei/te o] ouvk e;xestin poiei/n evn toi/j sa,bbasin 

Interesting versional support. Possibly stylistic? 


TVU 145 

48. 


Matthew 12:4 pw/j eivsh/lqen eivj to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/ 

kai. tou.j a;rtouj th/j proqe,sewj e;fagon( o] ouvk evxo.n h=n auvtw/| fagei/n 

ouvde. toi/j metV auvtou/ eiv mh. toi/j ièreu/sin mo,noijÈ 

BYZ Matthew 12:4 pw/j eivsh/lqen eivj to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/ 

kai. tou.j a;rtouj th/j proqe,sewj e;fagen o]uj ouvk evxo.n h=n auvtw/| fagei/n 

ouvde. toi/j met auvtou/ eiv mh. toi/j ièreu/sin mo,noij 

Byz P70(late 3 rd ), C, D, L, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, Co(+ mae-2), Basil(4 th CE), Gre, Trg 

e;laben 892* 

txt 01, B, 481 Byz 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:26 kai. tou.j a;rtouj th/j proqe,sewj e;fagen( 

NA 27 Luke 6:4 kai. tou.j a;rtouj th/j proqe,sewj labw.n e;fagen 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 79) thinks, that e;fagen is a conformation to eivsh/lqen. 

The sentence is about David and is in the singular. 

He entered the house of God and he ate the bread of the Presence, 

He entered the house of God and they ate the bread of the Presence, 

Nevertheless both readings make good sense. 

The Byzantine reading could be a harmonization to Mk/Lk or to the previous 

context. The support for the plural is very slim. An error is probable, especially 

in light of the support from the Byzantine minuscule 481. 


External Rating: - (indecisive) 


TVU 146 


NA 27 Matthew 12:4 pw/j eivsh/lqen eivj to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/ kai. tou.j 

a;rtouj th/j proqe,sewj e;fagon( o] ouvk evxo.n h=n auvtw/| fagei/n ouvde. toi/j 

metV auvtou/ eiv mh. toi/j ièreu/sin mo,noijÈ 


avllV h' toi/j ièreu/sin 

"but rather the priests?" 

B: no umlaut 

f1, 22 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 6:4 Îw`jÐ eivsh/lqen eivj to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/ kai. tou.j a;rtouj 

th/j proqe,sewj labw.n e;fagen kai. e;dwken toi/j metV auvtou/( ou]j ouvk 

e;xestin fagei/n eiv mh. mo,nouj tou.j ièrei/jÈ 

Probably a free rendering. 


TVU 147 


NA 27 Matthew 12:8 ku,rioj ga,r evstin 


o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. tou/ sabba,tou 

F, 047, f1, 33, 157, 517, 713, 788, 892, 1424, pc, aur, l, vg 

tou/ sabba,tou o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

dominus est enim Filius hominis etiam sabbati aur, l, vg 

dominus est enim etiam sabbati Filius hominis vg ms 

kai. tou/ sabba,tou o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou 124, 372, 565, pc, f, Sy-H, TR 

B: no umlaut 

"… also of the Sabbath" 

(from Legg and Trg) 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 2:28 w[ste 

ku,rio,j evstin o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. tou/ sabba,touÅ 

NA 27 Luke 6:5 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\ 

ku,rio,j evstin tou/ sabba,tou o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

BYZ Luke 6:5 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j o[ti 

ku,rio,j evstin o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. tou/ sabba,tou 

Byz A, D, L, R, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, sa, bo pt , Marcion E , WH mg 

txt 01, B, W, 1241, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, bo pt , WH 

It is more probable that the txt reading in Lk is a harmonization to Mt than that 

the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to Mk. Therefore the reading in Lk got 

the Rating "1? (NA probably wrong)". Additionally the support is quite limited 

for the txt reading. 

If we assume the Byzantine reading in Lk to be original then this minority 

reading in Mt is a harmonization to Mk and Lk. 


TVU 148 


NA 27 Matthew 12:10 kai. ivdou. a;nqrwpoj cei/ra e;cwn xhra,nÅ kai. 

evphrw,thsan auvto.n le,gontej\ eiv e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin qerapeu/saiÈ 

i[na kathgorh,swsin auvtou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 12:10 Kai. ivdou,( a;nqrwpoj h=n th.n cei/ra e;cwn xhra,n\ kai. 

evphrw,thsan auvto,n( le,gontej( Eiv e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin qerapeu,einÈ 

i[na kathgorh,swsin auvtou/Å 

Byz qerapeu,ein B, C, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

WH, Gre, Bois, Trg, SBL 

txt qerapeu/sai 01, D, L, W, pc, NA 25 , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

qerapeu/sai infinitive aorist active 

qerapeu,ein infinitive present active 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Luke 6:7 parethrou/nto de. auvto.n oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi 

eiv evn tw/| sabba,tw| qerapeu,ei( i[na eu[rwsin kathgorei/n auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Luke 6:9 ei=pen de. o` VIhsou/j pro.j auvtou,j\ evperwtw/ u`ma/j eiv e;xestin 

tw/| sabba,tw| avgaqopoih/sai h' kakopoih/sai( yuch.n sw/sai h' avpole,saiÈ 

NA 27 Luke 14:3 kai. avpokriqei.j o` VIhsou/j ei=pen pro.j tou.j nomikou.j kai. 

Farisai,ouj le,gwn\ e;xestin tw/| sabba,tw| qerapeu/sai h' ou;È 

qerapeu,ein A, W, Y, f13, 1424, Maj 

qerapeu/sai P45, P75, 01, B, D, L, Q, f1, 124, 157, 579 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:1 Kai. proskalesa,menoj tou.j dw,deka maqhta.j auvtou/ 

e;dwken auvtoi/j evxousi,an pneuma,twn avkaqa,rtwn w[ste evkba,llein auvta. 

kai. qerapeu,ein pa/san no,son kai. pa/san malaki,anÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 19:3 Kai. prosh/lqon auvtw/| Farisai/oi peira,zontej auvto.n 

kai. le,gontej\ eiv e;xestin avnqrw,pw| avpolu/sai th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kata. 

pa/san aivti,anÈ 

Robertson ("Wordpictures") comments: 

"The use of eiv in direct questions is really elliptical and seems an imitation of 

the Hebrew (Robertson, Grammar, p. 916). See also Mt 19:3. It is not translated 

in English."

Here WH and Byz agree against txt. 

Possibly qerapeu/sai is a harmonization to Lk 14:3. It is then possible that 

several witnesses at Lk 14:3 harmonize to Mt. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) thinks that the present infinitive is a conformation to the 

present of e;xestin. 

Rating: 1? or - (= NA probably wrong or indecisive)

TVU 149 


NA 27 Matthew 12:12 po,sw| ou=n Þ diafe,rei a;nqrwpoj proba,touÅ w[ste 

e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin kalw/j poiei/nÅ 

Þ ma/llon Q, f13, 33, 157, 517, 565, 713, 1424, 1675, pc, 

Lat, Sy (incl. –S, -C), mae-1+2 

Quanto magis melior est homo a, aur, b, c, f, ff 2 , g 1 , h, l, q, vg 

Quanto ergo superponit homo d 

Quanto ergo differt homo k 

Quantum ergo differat homo ff 1 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:26 evmble,yate eivj ta. peteina. tou/ ouvranou/ o[ti ouv 

spei,rousin ouvde. qeri,zousin ouvde. suna,gousin eivj avpoqh,kaj( kai. o` 

path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj tre,fei auvta,\ ouvc u`mei/j ma/llon diafe,rete 

auvtw/nÈ (same in parallel Luke 12:24) 

NA 27 Matthew 6:30 eiv de. to.n co,rton tou/ avgrou/ sh,meron o;nta kai. 

au;rion eivj kli,banon ballo,menon o` qeo.j ou[twj avmfie,nnusin( ouv 

pollw/| ma/llon u`ma/j( ovligo,pistoiÈ (same in parallel Luke 12:28) 

NA 27 Matthew 7:11 eiv ou=n u`mei/j ponhroi. o;ntej oi;date do,mata avgaqa. 

dido,nai toi/j te,knoij u`mw/n( po,sw| ma/llon o` path.r u`mw/n o` evn toi/j 

ouvranoi/j dw,sei avgaqa. toi/j aivtou/sin auvto,nÅ 

A natural addition. There is no reason for an omission. In the versions it could be 

translation freedom. 

Codex Bobiensis (k) has a curious blunder here: Instead of 

quanto magis melior est homo ove it writes: 

quanto ergo melior est homo iove 

"How much better, therefore, is a man than Jupiter? 


TVU 150 


NA 27 Matthew 12:13 to,te le,gei tw/| avnqrw,pw|\ e;kteino,n sou th.n cei/raÅ 

kai. evxe,teinen kai. avpekatesta,qh u`gih.j w`j h` a;llh) 

u`gih.j 01, C C2 , 892* 

w`j h` a;llh L184*, it(b, c, ff 1 , g 1 , h), Sy-C, Sy-S, Sy-P, arm 

add h` cei.r auvtou/ before u`gih.j: 118, 209(=f1), 983, 1689(=f13 c ), 1424, pc, L184 

892: After u`gih.j is an insertion sign (wavy line plus two dots, cp. Mt 6:15) and 

w`j h` a;llh has been added in the margin. 

Lat(aur, d, f, k, l, q, vg) read txt. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 3:5 kai. avpekatesta,qh h` cei.r auvtou/Å 

BYZ Mark 3:5 kai. avpokatesta,qh h` cei.r auvtou/ u`gih.j w`j h` a;llhÅ 

Byz C C , L, QCmg , f13, 157, 892, Maj, a, b, c, Sy-S 

omit u`gih.j 346, a, b, c, Sy-S 

txt 01, A, B, C*, K, P, W, D, Q*, L, P, f1, 33, 565, 579, pc, 

Lat(aur, e, f, l, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, Co 

euvqe,wj D, it(d, ff 2 , i, r 1 ) 

NA 27 Luke 6:10 kai. avpekatesta,qh h` cei.r auvtou/Å 

BYZ Luke 6:10 kai. avpokatesta,qh h` cei.r auvtou/ u`gih.j w`j h` a;llhÅ 

Byz A, D, Q, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 157, 565, 892, 1071, Maj, it, Sy-P, Sy-H 

u`gih.j W, 579 

txt P4(200 CE), P75 vid , 01, B, L, 33, pc, Lat(a, aur, e, ff 2 , l, vg), Co 

Interesting variation in all three parallels. 

There seems to be something awkward with this phrase. Possibly stylistic? 


TVU 151 


NA 27 Matthew 12:15 ~O de. VIhsou/j gnou.j avnecw,rhsen evkei/qenÅ kai. 

hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| Îo;cloiÐ polloi,( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou.j pa,ntaj 

BYZ Matthew 12:15 ~O de. VIhsou/j gnou.j avnecw,rhsen evkei/qen kai. 

hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi, kai. evqera,peusen auvtou.j pa,ntaj 

T&T #37 

omit: 01, B, 372, 873, 

Lat(a, aur, b, c, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , k, l, vg), NA 25 , WH, Gre, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL 

polloi. o;cloi X, 0211, 0233, 2680, al 26 

Tregelles has o;cloi in brackets. 

d, f, h, q read txt. 

B: umlaut! (line 11 C, page 2149) hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:25 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. avpo. th/j 

Galilai,aj kai. Dekapo,lewj kai. ~Ierosolu,mwn kai. VIoudai,aj kai. 

pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nouÅ 

NA 27 Mark 3:7 kai. polu. plh/qoj avpo. th/j Galilai,aj Îhvkolou,qhsenÐ( kai. 

avpo. th/j VIoudai,aj 

NA 27 Luke 6:17 Kai. kataba.j metV auvtw/n e;sth evpi. to,pou pedinou/( kai. 

o;cloj polu.j maqhtw/n auvtou/( kai. plh/qoj polu. tou/ laou/ avpo. pa,shj 

th/j VIoudai,aj kai. VIerousalh.m kai. th/j parali,ou Tu,rou kai. Sidw/noj( 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:1 hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi,Å 

NA 27 Matthew 13:2 kai. sunh,cqhsan pro.j auvto.n o;cloi polloi,( 

NA 27 Matthew 15:30 kai. prosh/lqon auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. 

NA 27 Matthew 19:2 kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| o;cloi polloi,( 

NA 27 Mark 2:2 kai. sunh,cqhsan polloi. 

NA 27 Mark 6:33 kai. ei=don auvtou.j u`pa,gontaj kai. evpe,gnwsan polloi. 

Probably a h.t. error, OI - OI. In Matthew when polloi. is used for people it is 

always coupled with o;cloi.

Weiss (Mt Com.) thinks that o;cloi comes from 4:25. 


Omission wrong

TVU 152 


NA 27 Matthew 12:18 ivdou. o` pai/j mou o]n h`|re,tisa( o` avgaphto,j mou eivj o]n 

euvdo,khsen h` yuch, mou\ qh,sw to. pneu/ma, mou evpV auvto,n( kai. kri,sin 

toi/j e;qnesin avpaggelei/Å 

omit 01*, B, 892, pc, ff 1 , WH, NA 25 

txt 01 C1 , C vid , L, W, Q, 0106, 0233, f13, Maj, Weiss 

evn w-| D, f1, 33, 1424, Ir Lat , Trg (!) 

D: eivj o]n h`|re,tisa( o` avgaphto,j mou evn w-| euvdo,khsen 

Of f1, only 1, 1582 read evn w-|. 22 et al. read txt. 

Tischendorf ("vid") and Swanson list C* for evn w-| and C C for the txt reading. 

Tischendorf writes in his C-edition: "Inde ab upo usque ad eis on omnia 

secundae manus sunt. Pro upo videor mihi lectionis primaevae dia vestigia 

assecutus esse. Praeterea admodum probabile est, pro eis on, quum 

potissimum haec quoque sua manu corrector scripserit, primam manum habuisse 

en w." This correction is not noted in NA. 

01: eivj has been added above the line. 

B: no umlaut 

LXX parallel: 

LXX Isaiah 42:1 Iakwb o` pai/j mou avntilh,myomai auvtou/ Israhl o` 

evklekto,j mou prosede,xato auvto.n h` yuch, mou e;dwka to. pneu/ma, mou 

evpV auvto,n kri,sin toi/j e;qnesin evxoi,sei 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:17 kai. ivdou. fwnh. evk tw/n ouvranw/n le,gousa\ ou-to,j 

evstin o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn w-| euvdo,khsaÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 17:5 e;ti auvtou/ lalou/ntoj ivdou. nefe,lh fwteinh. 

evpeski,asen auvtou,j( kai. ivdou. fwnh. evk th/j nefe,lhj le,gousa\ ou-to,j 

evstin o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn w-| euvdo,khsa\ avkou,ete auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Mark 1:11 su. ei= o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsaÅ 

NA 27 Luke 3:22 su. ei= o` uiò,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsaÅ 

The evn w-| is probably a conformation to Mt 3:17 or 17:5.

D seems to support the eivj too, because it uses it with h`|re,tisa. The omission 

of eivj is probably a conformation to immediate context, the o]n earlier in the 

verse. Note the correction by 01 C1 . 


TVU 153 



To,te proshne,cqh auvtw/| daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. kwfo,j( 


To,te prosh,negkan auvtw/| daimonizo,menon tuflo.n kai. kwfo.n 

B, 0281 vid , 1424, 1675, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, WH, Bal 

txt 01, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

B: no umlaut 

proshne,cqh indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular 

prosh,negkan indicative aorist active 3rd person plural 

daimonizo,menoj participle present passive nominative masculine singular 

daimonizo,menon participle present passive accusative masculine singular 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:11 prosh,negkan auvtw/| dw/ra( 

NA 27 Matthew 4:24 prosh,negkan auvtw/| pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj 

NA 27 Matthew 8:16 prosh,negkan auvtw/| daimonizome,nouj pollou,j\ 

NA 27 Matthew 9:32 prosh,negkan auvtw/| a;nqrwpon kwfo.n daimonizo,menonÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:35 prosh,negkan auvtw/| pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj 

NA 27 Matthew 18:24 proshne,cqh auvtw/| ei-j ovfeile,thj muri,wn tala,ntwnÅ 

prosh,negkan appears to be the more standard Matthean term. All these other 

occurrences are safe! prosh,negkan is thus here probably inspired from 

context, 8:16 and 9:32. 

Pete Williams comments on the Syriac: 

"These examples seem to suggest difficulty experienced in translating the 

passive of 'bring'. This difficulty is not only in OS, but also in P as 

witnessed to by its avoidance of the passive even when it differs from OS. 

This tendency in the Syriac brings into question NA27’s (and Legg’s) 

citation in Matthew 12:22. There for txt’s proshne,cqh auvtw/| 

daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. kwfo,j NA27 cites (SCP) for the active 

construction prosh,negkan auvtw/| daimonizo,menon tuflo.n kai. 

kwfo.n. Superficially, since SCP have the pael 'they brought', and the 

ethpaal 'was brought' is attested in Syriac, it might seem that SCP support 

the active. However, since the only other two occurrences in the Gospels of

the passive of prosfe,rw are also translated by actives in Syriac (Matthew 

18:24, 19:13, cited above), NA27’s note in Matthew 12:22 is not convincing." 




TVU 154 

NA 27 Matthew 12:22 To,te proshne,cqh auvtw/| daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. 

kwfo,j( kai. evqera,peusen auvto,n( 

w[ste to.n kwfo.n lalei/n kai. ble,peinÅ 

BYZ Matthew 12:22 To,te proshne,cqh auvtw/| daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. 

kwfo,j kai. evqera,peusen auvto,n 

w[ste to.n tuflo.n kai. kwfo.n kai. lalei/n kai. ble,pein 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, Q, 0233, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 700, Maj, q, Sy-P, Sy-H 

to.n tuflo.n kai. kwfo.n kai. C, X, 22, 565, Maj 

to.n tuflo.n kai. kwfo.n 0281, 33 

to.n kwfo.n kai. tuflo.n W, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 517, pc, arab MS 

to.n kwfo.n kai. tuflo.n kai. L, X, D, 700, 713, Sy-H, Sy-P, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, D, 983, 892, 1424, pc, ff 1 , g 1 , k, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2) 

to.n kwfo.n kai. 01 C2 

omit: Lat (!) 

B: umlaut! (line 41 C, p. 1249) to.n kwfo.n lalei/n kai. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:33 kai. evkblhqe,ntoj tou/ daimoni,ou evla,lhsen o` kwfo,jÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 15:31 w[ste to.n o;clon qauma,sai ble,pontaj kwfou.j 

lalou/ntaj 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:14 evge,neto de. tou/ daimoni,ou evxelqo,ntoj evla,lhsen o` kwfo.j 

tuflo.n is probably an addition inspired by the first part of the verse (so 

Weiss) and the verbs lalei/n kai. ble,pein. The insertion of the kai. at the end 

is a bit strange. Note the complete omission in Lat! 

Accidental omission due to h.t. is possible. 




TVU 155 


NA 27 Matthew 12:30 o` mh. w'n metV evmou/ katV evmou/ evstin( kai. o` mh. 

suna,gwn metV evmou/ 

skorpi,zeiÅ 

skorpi,zei me 01, 33, 1582*, pc, Sy-H mg , bo 

Note also the mae variant: (mae-2 Reconstruction by Schenke) 

o` mh. sunhgme,noj w'n metV evmou/ evskorpisme,noj evstin (mae-1), mae-2 

"who is not gathered with me, is scattered". 

1582: Something has been washed out, probably me. 

B: no umlaut 

skorpi,zw scatter, disperse 

Same in Lk, compare: 

NA 27 Luke 11:23 ~O mh. w'n metV evmou/ katV evmou/ evstin( kai. o` mh. 

suna,gwn metV evmou/ 

skorpi,zei me 01*, C C skorpi,zeiÅ 

, L, Q, Y, 33, 579, 892, 1071, Sy-S, bo, Gre 

See Ehrman "Corruption", p. 135-136. 

skorpi,zei is transitive. If the scribes wanted to supply a prepositional phrase 

as a personal object (as with the previous verbs), katV evmou/ would be the 

natural addition. The addition of me makes no sense in context (Metzger: "with 

disastrous consequences for the sense!"). 

Ehrman sees this as a corruption against the Gnostic separation of Jesus and 

Christ. 


TVU 156 



NA 27 Matthew 12:31 Dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n( pa/sa a`marti,a kai. blasfhmi,a 

avfeqh,setai Þ toi/j avnqrw,poij( h` de. tou/ pneu,matoj blasfhmi,a ouvk 

avfeqh,setaiÅ 

Þ u`mi/n B, f1, 22, Sy-Pal ms , sa, mae-1, Or, Athanasius, WH mg 

B: no umlaut 

An interesting addition, probably accidental. Interesting, strong support. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 145): "thoughtless, from le,gw u`mi/n". 

It could have been omitted as redundant. 

Interesting combination of B, f1, 22. 


TVU 157 

NA 27 Matthew 12:31 Dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n( 

pa/sa a`marti,a kai. blasfhmi,a avfeqh,setai toi/j avnqrw,poij( 

h` de. tou/ pneu,matoj blasfhmi,a ouvk avfeqh,setaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 12:31 Dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n 

pa/sa a`marti,a kai. blasfhmi,a avfeqh,setai toi/j avnqrw,poij 

h` de. tou/ pneu,matoj blasfhmi,a ouvk avfeqh,setai toi/j avnqrw,poij\ 

Byz C, D, L, W, D, Q, 0271, f13, 33, Maj, it, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, f1, 174(f13), 22, 517, 892, 1424, 1675, pc, aur, k, vg, sa, bo, mae-2 

auvtw/| b, ff 1 , h, Sy-S, Sy-C, mae-1, bo ms 

omit last part due to parablepsis (h.t.): X, 579, pc 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 3:29 o]j dV a'n blasfhmh,sh| eivj to. pneu/ma to. a[gion( ouvk e;cei 

a;fesin eivj to.n aivw/na( avlla. e;noco,j evstin aivwni,ou a`marth,matojÅ 

NA 27 Luke 12:10 tw/| de. eivj to. a[gion pneu/ma blasfhmh,santi ouvk 

avfeqh,setaiÅ 

The parallels are quite different, the addition is probably inspired by the first 

part of the verse (so Weiss). 

Regarding the Old Syriac P. Williams writes: 

"The problem here is that SC have personalized the whole clause to read 

'Everyone who blasphemes against the [Holy] Spirit, it will not be forgiven 

him.' The construction thus cannot be compared with that in txt, and 

certainly one part of it cannot be extracted and used to support a variant 

from txt." 


Gospels", Gorgias Press, 2004, p. 63. 


TVU 158 



NA 27 Matthew 12:47 Îei=pen de, tij auvtw/|\ ivdou. h` mh,thr sou kai. oi` 

avdelfoi, sou e;xw e`sth,kasin zhtou/nte,j soi lalh/saiÅÐ 

BYZ Matthew 12:47 ei=pen de, tij auvtw/| VIdou. h` mh,thr sou kai. oi` avdelfoi, 

sou e;xw e`sth,kasin zhtou/nte,j soi lalh/sai 

omit verse: 01*, B, L, G, pc, ff 1 , k, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-2, WH 

txt 01 C1 , C, D, W, Z, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, bo, WH mg , Weiss 

NA 25 has the verse in single brackets. 

Variants: 

ei=pen de, tij tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/\ 01 C1 

ei=pen de, tij tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ proj auvto.n\ 892, bo 

… e`sth,kasin e;xw zhtou/nte,j soi lalh/sai D, 33, pc 

… e`sth,kasin zhtou/nte,j soi lalh/sai f1 (omitting e;xw) 

… e;xw zhtou/si,n se 01 C1 (Mk) 

… e;xw zhtou/si,n soi ivdei/n 892 

… e`sth,kasin e;xw ivdei/n se qe,lontej 1071 (Lk) 

… e`sth,kasin e;xw zhtou/nte,j se ivdei/n 1424, 1675 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 3:32 kai. le,gousin auvtw/|\ ivdou. h` mh,thr sou kai. oi` avdelfoi, 

sou Îkai. ai` avdelfai, souÐ e;xw zhtou/si,n seÅ 

NA 27 Luke 8:20 avphgge,lh de. auvtw/|\ h` mh,thr sou kai. oi` avdelfoi, sou 

e`sth,kasin e;xw ivdei/n qe,lonte,j seÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 12:46 :Eti auvtou/ lalou/ntoj toi/j o;cloij 

ivdou. h` mh,thr kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ ei`sth,keisan e;xw zhtou/ntej 

auvtw/| lalh/saiÅ 

47 ei=pen de, tij auvtw/|\ 

ivdou. h` mh,thr sou kai. oi` avdelfoi, sou e;xw e`sth,kasin zhtou/nte,j 

soi lalh/saiÅ

The verse was omitted probably due to h.t. (so Weiss). 

verse 46: zhtou/ntej auvtw/| lalh/sai 

verse 47: zhtou/nte,j soi lalh/sai 

The verse is needed for the following. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 184) argues that if 

the verse had been added later to explain v. 48, it would not have been so 

tautological. 

Zahn, on the other hand thinks (Comm. Mat.), that the verse is a harmonization 

to Mk 3:32. 

If the verse were genuine, Mt and Lk would agree against Mk in reading 

e`sth,kasin (Minor Agreement!). 

C.H. Turner (Marcan Usage): 

"It seems preposterous at first sight to suppose that words can be genuine 

which are absent from 01 B L, the African Latin (k), the Old Syriac, and the 

Sahidic. But a sound instinct led Westcott and Hort to admit the words at 

least to their margin. For in the first place they are necessary to the 

sense: and in the second place experience of manuscripts establishes no 

rule on a more certain basis than that, where homoioteleuton will account 

for omission, the omitted words are probably genuine. It is therefore 

possible to say with some confidence that Mt. 12:47 is genuine." 


Omission wrong, NA: omit brackets

TVU 159 


NA 27 Matthew 12:50 o[stij ga.r a'n poih,sh| to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j mou tou/ 

evn ouvranoi/j auvto,j mou Þ avdelfo.j kai. avdelfh. kai. mh,thr evsti,nÅ 

Þ kai. Q, f13, 517, 700, 1424, 1675, al, b, ff 1 , h, vg 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 3:35 o]j Îga.rÐ a'n poih,sh| to. qe,lhma tou/ qeou/( ou-toj avdelfo,j 

mou kai. avdelfh. kai. mh,thr evsti,nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 8:21 mh,thr mou kai. avdelfoi, mou ou-toi, eivsin oi` to.n lo,gon 

tou/ qeou/ avkou,ontej kai. poiou/ntejÅ 

Meaning probably: 

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." 

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is also my brother and sister and mother." 

Both readings make sense. The variant has probably been created to tone down 

the harshness of the saying. 


TVU 160 

52. 


Matthew 13:1 VEn th/| h`me,ra| evkei,nh| evxelqw.n o` VIhsou/j 

th/j oivki,aj evka,qhto para. th.n qa,lassan\ 

BYZ Matthew 13:1 VEn de. th/| h`me,ra| evkei,nh| evxelqw.n o` VIhsou/j 

avpo. th/j oivki,aj evka,qhto para. th.n qa,lassan\ 

T&T #39 

avpo. th/j oivki,aj C, L, W, X, D, f13 a,c , 22, Maj, Trg mg 

evk th/j oivki,aj 01, Z, 33, 892, 1342, pc 3 , WH mg , Trg mg , Tis, Bal 

pc = 295, 494, 1695 

th/j oivki,aj B, Q, f1, 124, 788(=f13 b ), 517, 1424, 1675, 2586, pc 14 , Or 

pc = 7, 164, 335, 805, 939, 1201, 1266, 1443, 1554, 1555, 

1651, 1823*, 2487, 2555 

one of the above: aur, c, f, h, l, q, vg, Sy-C, bo 

kai. D, a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , k, Sy-S 

add de.: C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, Maj 

txt 01, B, Z, 33, 892, al 

Or (Catena manuscript Vindob 154): … evxh/lqe me.n th/j oivki,aj( evka,qhto de. 

para. th.n qa,lassan) 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 19:1 o` VIhsou/j ... meth/ren 

NA 27 avpo. th/j Galilai,aj 

Matthew 24:1 Kai. evxelqw.n o` VIhsou/j avpo. tou/ ièrou/ 


o` evpi. tou/ dw,matoj mh. kataba,tw a=rai ta. evk th/j oivki,aj 

auvtou/( 

NA 27 Mark 7:29 evxelh,luqen evk th/j qugatro,j sou to. daimo,nionÅ 

avpo. G, 118, 157, pc 

NA 27 Mark 7:31 Kai. pa,lin evxelqw.n evk tw/n o`ri,wn Tu,rou 

avpo. Q, 28, 565, 1071, pc 

NA 27 Mark 10:46 Kai. evkporeuome,nou auvtou/ avpo. VIericw.

NA 27 Mark 13:35 

grhgorei/te ou=n\ ouvk oi;date ga.r po,te o` ku,rioj th/j oivki,aj e;rcetai( 

NA 27 Luke 6:49 kai. evge,neto to. r`h/gma [ruin] th/j oivki,aj evkei,nhj me,ga 

NA 27 Luke 7:6 h;dh de. auvtou/ ouv makra.n avpe,contoj avpo. th/j oivki,aj 

NA 27 Luke 22:11 kai. evrei/te tw/| oivkodespo,th| th/j oivki,aj\ 

Compared with the o` ku,rioj th/j oivki,aj (Mk 13:35) the o` VIhsou/j th/j 

oivki,aj sounds a bit like "the Jesus of the house". There is no reason for the 

omission of the preposition. 

On external grounds, without B one would probably consider this reading 

secondary. The support from 14 Byzantine minuscules makes this reading 

suspect, too. But it is also supported by f1, an independent text type in Mt, with 

a comparatively good text. 

Perhaps the phrase without preposition is idiom? 

Please note also the addition of de. at the beginning of the verse. The support 

here is basically identical with the evk th/j oivki,aj reading later. 

Compare Mt 3:1, where D, L, Maj pt omit de.. 


TVU 161 


NA 27 Matthew 13:6 h`li,ou de. avnatei,lantoj evkaumati,sqh kai. dia. to. mh. 

e;cein rì,zan evxhra,nqhÅ 

ba,qoj rì,zhj Q, f13, pc 

B: no umlaut 

ba,qoj "deep" 


NA 27 Matthew 13:5 a;lla de. e;pesen evpi. ta. petrw,dh o[pou ouvk ei=cen gh/n 

pollh,n( kai. euvqe,wj evxane,teilen dia. to. mh. e;cein ba,qoj gh/j\ 

Clearly a harmonization to the previous verse. 


TVU 162 


NA 27 Matthew 13:7 a;lla de. e;pesen evpi. ta.j avka,nqaj( kai. avne,bhsan ai` 

a;kanqai kai. e;pnixan auvta,Å 

BYZ Matthew 13:7 :Alla de. e;pesen evpi. ta.j avka,nqaj( kai. avne,bhsan ai` 

a;kanqai kai. avpe,pnixan auvta,Å 

Byz B, C, L, W, Z, f1, 33, 892, Maj, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg 

txt 01, D, Q, f13, 565, pc, WH mg 

Swanson notes B* for avpe,pnixan and B C for e;pnixan. I have looked at the 

facsimile, but it is not clear to me what Swanson means. I cannot see any 

corrections. The letters get smaller to the end of the line and look condensed. 

There is no mention of a correction in Tischendorf or other editions. The only 

other error Tischendorf notes is that B* originally wrote eivj in 13:8 instead of 

evpi., but it has been corrected by the original scribe. 

B: no umlaut 

pni,gw "choke" 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 8:7 kai. e[teron e;pesen evn me,sw| tw/n avkanqw/n( kai. 

sumfuei/sai ai` a;kanqai avpe,pnixan auvto,Å 

e;pnixan 01* 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:28 evxelqw.n de. o` dou/loj evkei/noj eu-ren e[na tw/n 

sundou,lwn auvtou/( o]j w;feilen auvtw/| e`kato.n dhna,ria( kai. krath,saj 

auvto.n e;pnigen le,gwn\ avpo,doj ei; ti ovfei,leijÅ 

Here WH and Byz agree against txt. It is possible that it is a harmonization to 

Lk. Mt uses the word one more time only at 18:28. Difficult to judge. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) thinks that the simplex originates from a loss of ap before 

ep. 


TVU 163 



NA 27 Matthew 13:11 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ o[ti u`mi/n de,dotai 

gnw/nai ta. musth,ria th/j basilei,aj tw/n ouvranw/n( evkei,noij de. ouv 

de,dotaiÅ 

omit 01, C, Z, 892, pc, ff 1 , k, bo, WH, NA 25 

txt B, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat(e), Sy, sa, mae, WH mg , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:11 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\ u`mi/n to. musth,rion de,dotai th/j 

basilei,aj tou/ qeou/\ evkei,noij de. toi/j e;xw evn parabolai/j ta. pa,nta 

gi,netai( omit auvtoi/j: 33 

NA 27 Luke 8:10 o` de. ei=pen\ u`mi/n de,dotai gnw/nai ta. musth,ria th/j 

basilei,aj tou/ qeou/( toi/j de. loipoi/j evn parabolai/j( i[na ble,pontej mh. 

ble,pwsin kai. avkou,ontej mh. suniw/sinÅ 

add auvtoi/j: Q, f1, f13, 157, 1071, 1241, 1342, pc, Lat, Sy, Co 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:39 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:37 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

BYZ Matthew 13:37 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j( 


BYZ Matthew 17:11 o` de. VIhsou/j avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j( 



NA 27 Luke 19:40 kai. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

BYZ Luke 19:40 kai. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j 

That it is a conformation to either Mk or Lk is unlikely. The wording is different 

and a pronoun is nothing that suggests harmonization. 

The omission of a pronoun is rare, the addition frequent. 

Difficult to judge internally.


TVU 164 


NA 27 Matthew 13:13 dia. tou/to evn parabolai/j auvtoi/j lalw/( 

o[ti ble,pontej ouv ble,pousin kai. avkou,ontej 

ouvk avkou,ousin ouvde. suni,ousin( 

mh. avkou,wsin kai. mh. suniw/sin( mh,pote evpistre,ywsin) 

D, Q, f1, f13, 22, (1424), it, Sy-S, Sy-C, arab MS , (Eus) 

1424 omits mh,pote evpistre,ywsin 

Eus omits kai. mh. suniw/sin 

ne quando convertantur. b, c, d, ff 2 *, g 1 , h 

ne quando convertant se. e 

ne forte convertantur. k 

ne quando convertantur, et sanem illos. h, Eus 

Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica, book 9, ch. 16): 

kata. de. to.n Matqai/on ÅÅÅ dia. tou/to evn parabolai/j auvtoi/j lalw/( 

i[na ble,pontej mh. ble,pwsin kai. avkou,ontej 

mh. avkou,wsin( mh,pote evpistre,ywsin( kai. iva,somai auvtou,j 

omits all from o[ti ... suni,ousin mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:12 i[na ble,pontej ble,pwsin kai. mh. i;dwsin( kai. avkou,ontej 

avkou,wsin kai. mh. suniw/sin( mh,pote evpistre,ywsin kai. avfeqh/| auvtoi/jÅ 

vg: nequando convertantur et dimittantur eis peccata 

NA 27 Luke 8:10 o` de. ei=pen\ u`mi/n de,dotai gnw/nai ta. musth,ria th/j 

basilei,aj tou/ qeou/( toi/j de. loipoi/j evn parabolai/j( i[na ble,pontej mh. 

ble,pwsin kai. avkou,ontej mh. suniw/sinÅ 

Compare next verses 14-15: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:14 kai. avnaplhrou/tai auvtoi/j h` profhtei,a VHsai

Compare also: 

LXX Isaiah 6:9 kai. ei=pen poreu,qhti kai. eivpo.n tw/| law/| tou,tw| 

avkoh/| avkou,sete kai. ouv mh. sunh/te kai. ble,pontej ble,yete kai. ouv mh. 

i;dhte 10 evpacu,nqh ga.r h` kardi,a tou/ laou/ tou,tou kai. toi/j wvsi.n 

auvtw/n bare,wj h;kousan kai. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n evka,mmusan mh,pote 

i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. toi/j wvsi.n avkou,swsin kai. th/| kardi,a| 

sunw/sin kai. evpistre,ywsin kai. iva,somai auvtou,j (vg: et sanem eum) 

NA 27 John 12:40 tetu,flwken auvtw/n tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. evpw,rwsen 

auvtw/n th.n kardi,an( i[na mh. i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. noh,swsin th/| 

kardi,a| kai. strafw/sin( kai. iva,somai auvtou,jÅ (vg: et sanem eos) 

Also cited in Acts 28:27. Here the Vulgate reads: et sanem illos, as h above. 

An interesting combination of "Western" and "Caesarean" witnesses. 

The variant reading has a change from indicative to subjunctive. This is quite 

unmotivated and probably simply due to copying the parallel account in Mk. 


TVU 165 


NA 27 Matthew 13:20 o` de. evpi. ta. petrw,dh sparei,j( ou-to,j evstin o` to.n 

lo,gon avkou,wn kai. euvqu.j meta. cara/j lamba,nwn auvto,n( 

NA 27 Matthew 13:21 ouvk e;cei de. rì,zan evn eàutw/| avlla. pro,skairo,j evstin( 

genome,nhj de. qli,yewj h' diwgmou/ dia. to.n lo,gon euvqu.j skandali,zetaiÅ 

Not in NA and not in SQE but in Tis, Trg and Legg! 

auvtw/| L, D, pc, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H 

omit: pc, Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 4:17 kai. ouvk e;cousin rì,zan evn eàutoi/j avlla. pro,skairoi, 

eivsin( ei=ta genome,nhj qli,yewj h' diwgmou/ dia. to.n lo,gon euvqu.j 

skandali,zontaiÅ avutoi/j: L, pc, Sy-H 

auvtw/| Sy-S 

omit: geo pt 

NA 27 Luke 8:13 oi` de. evpi. th/j pe,traj oi] o[tan avkou,swsin meta. cara/j 

de,contai to.n lo,gon( kai. ou-toi rì,zan ouvk e;cousin Þ( oi] pro.j kairo.n 

pisteu,ousin kai. evn kairw/| peirasmou/ avfi,stantaiÅ 

Þ evn eàutw/| Sy-C, Sy-S 

The Greek text is problematic because it is difficult to interpret: 

"But he has no root in himself." 

Some witnesses have: "But he has no root in it (= the word)." 

or: "It (the word) has no root in him." 

It is interesting and difficult to explain that the Syriac Version has this reading 

in all three Gospels, even in Lk, where the words are not present at all in Greek. 

Nevertheless the variants cannot be original, because then nothing explains the 

origin of the txt form. 

Compare: 

J. Joosten NTS 37 (1991) 153-59 [he speculates about an underlying Aramaic 

original which was interpreted wrongly in the Greek tradition.]


TVU 166 

55. 

NA 27 Difficult variant 

Matthew 13:22 kai. h` me,rimna tou/ aivw/noj 

BYZ Matthew 13:22 kai. h` me,rimna tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou 

Byz 01 C1 , C, L, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, sa mss , mae-1+2, bo, Or, Gre, SBL 

txt 01*, B, D, it, sa ms 

saeculi huius aur, b, f, q, vg ms 

saeculi istius c, ff 1 , l, vg 

saeculi a, d, e, ff 2 , g 1 , h, k 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels:: 

NA 27 Mark 4:19 kai. ai` me,rimnai tou/ aivw/noj 

BYZ Mark 4:19 kai. ai` me,rimnai tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou( 

Byz A, K, P, f13, 22, 33, 157, 579, 1071, Maj, f, Sy, Co, arm, geo 

txt 01, B, C, L, D, f1, 28, 892, pc, aur, l, vg 

tou/ bi,ou D, W, Q, 517, 565, 700, 1424, pc, it(b, c, d, e, ff 2 , i, q, r 1 ) 

NA 27 Luke 8:14 kai. u`po. merimnw/n kai. plou,tou kai. h`donw/n tou/ bi,ou 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:40 ou[twj e;stai evn th/| suntelei,a| tou/ aivw/noj\ 

BYZ Matthew 13:40 ou[twj e;stai evn th/| suntelei,a| tou/ aivw/noj tou,touÅ 

Byz C, L, W, Q, 0106, 0233, 0242, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj, 

f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa ms , bo, 

txt 01, B, D, G, 1582, 22, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-1, Ir Lat , Cyr 

NA 27 Luke 16:8 o[ti oi` uiòi. tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou fronimw,teroi u`pe.r tou.j 

uiòu.j tou/ fwto.j eivj th.n genea.n th.n eàutw/n eivsinÅ 

omit: pc 

NA 27 Luke 20:34 oi` uiòi. tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou gamou/sin kai. gami,skontai( 

Difficult. Slim support. 

Possibly idiomatic, tou/ aivw/noj = tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou.


TVU 167 



NA 27 Matthew 13:28 o` de. e;fh auvtoi/j\ evcqro.j a;nqrwpoj tou/to evpoi,hsenÅ 

oi` de. dou/loi le,gousin auvtw/|\ qe,leij ou=n avpelqo,ntej sulle,xwmen 

auvta,È 

In NA as 2 variants! 

auvtw/| le,gousin B, WH 

le,gousin auvtw/| 157, 1424 

one of these: g 2 , h, Co, Eus 

dou/loi auvtw/| le,gousin C, 0281, pc, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg, SBL 

txt dou/loi le,gousin auvtw/| 01, 33, 892, 1241, pc, Tis 

le,gousin auvtw/| oi` dou/loi D, it (without oi` de.) 

Byz dou/loi ei=pon auvtw/| L, W, Q, f1, f13, Maj, Lat(aur, f, ff 1 , l, q, vg) 

one of these: Sy 

Legg has 1241 erroneously for the C reading. Lake and NA have it correctly for 

txt. Checked at the film. 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:27 proselqo,ntej de. oi` dou/loi tou/ oivkodespo,tou ei=pon 

auvtw/|\ ku,rie( ouvci. kalo.n spe,rma e;speiraj evn tw/| sw/| avgrw/|È po,qen ou=n 

e;cei ziza,niaÈ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 14:17 oi` de. le,gousin auvtw/|\ ouvk e;comen w-de eiv mh. pe,nte 

a;rtouj kai. du,o ivcqu,ajÅ 

A curious variation. 

The words in Mt 14:17 are safe. It is noteworthy that for the string o` de. le,gw 

auvto,j the pronoun appears invariably at the end. This is true for the LXX and 

the NT. Thus the reading of B is extremely rare. 

If the txt reading is the original, there would have been no reason for a change. 

It is smooth and normal. So, the decision must be between the B reading and the 

C reading. Byz is certainly a conformation to the previous verse.

It is possible that the omission of dou/loi is due to homoioarcton: 

oidedouloiautw 

With the eye skipping from delta of dou/loi to the alpha of auvtw/|. 

Overall the best explanation seems to be that the C reading is original. 

Rating: 1? (= NA probably wrong)

TVU 168 


NA 27 Matthew 13:30 a;fete sunauxa,nesqai avmfo,tera e[wj tou/ qerismou/( 

kai. evn kairw/| tou/ qerismou/ evrw/ toi/j qeristai/j\ sulle,xate prw/ton ta. 

ziza,nia kai. dh,sate auvta. eivj de,smaj pro.j to. katakau/sai auvta,( to.n 

de. si/ton sunaga,gete eivj th.n avpoqh,khn mouÅ 


suna,gete B, Y*, G, 1, 1689, pc, WH, Trg 

txt 01, C, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 

sunle,getai D, k 

f1: NA has f1 for suna,gete, but it is actually only MS 1, that reads thus. All 

other f1 MSS read txt (incl. 22, 1582). -> A. Anderson f1, 2004, p. 175. 

B: no umlaut 

sunaga,gete imperative aorist active 2nd person plural 

suna,gete imperative present active 2nd person plural 

Quite probably a transcription error. 


TVU 169 


NA 27 Matthew 13:31 :Allhn parabolh.n pare,qhken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ 

evla,lhsen D, L*, N, O, S, Q, f1, f13, 517, 1424, 1675, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-C 

dicens $evla,lhsen% = a, b, c, d, e, f, ff 2 , h, k, q 

proposuit $pare,qhken% = aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg 

f1: compare Anderson (Family 1, 2004), p. 99. Both 1 and 1582 read evla,lhsen. 

NA does not list f1 for evla,lhsen, but Swanson. Lake 1902 has erroneously 

pare,qhken for 1. Checked at the film. 

L: Tischendorf writes: "evla,lhsen auvtoi/j o` IS erasum est sed satis etiamnum 

comparet." (folio 29) [The blank space is then followed by txt pare,qhken 

auvtoi/j.] 

B: no umlaut 

Compare verse 24 + 33: 


NA 27 Matthew 13:33 :Allhn parabolh.n evla,lhsen auvtoi/j\ 

C, 1241, pc, sa mss : pare,qhken 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:3 Kai. evla,lhsen auvtoi/j polla. evn parabolai/j le,gwn\ 

NA 27 Matthew 13:34 tau/ta pa,nta evla,lhsen o` VIhsou/j evn parabolai/j 

evla,lhsen is the more normal word and it is only natural for scribes falling back 

into it (compare L). It is interesting that even Matthew probably fell into it in 

verse 33. 


TVU 170 


NA 27 Matthew 13:33 :Allhn parabolh.n evla,lhsen auvtoi/j\ 

omit: D, d, (k), Sy-S, Sy-C 

k = "alia similitudo" 

WH have the term in brackets 

pare,qhken auvtoi/j C, 1241, pc, sa mss 

omit: :Allhn parabolh.n evla,lhsen auvtoi/j mae-2 

B: no umlaut 




evla,lhsen auvtoi/j 

D, L*, N, O, S, Q, f13, 517, 1424, 1675, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-C 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 183): "oversight". 

Basically the words could have been added from 13:31. 

In principle it is also possible that the complete omission as mae-2 has it is 

original and others added in part or complete from verse 31. 


TVU 171 



NA 27 Matthew 13:35 o[pwj plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. tou/ profh,tou 

le,gontoj\ avnoi,xw evn parabolai/j to. sto,ma mou( evreu,xomai kekrumme,na 

avpo. katabolh/j Îko,smouÐÅ 

dia. VHsai

Jerome (Comm. Mat.): 

Legi in nonnullis codicibus et studiosus lector forte reperiet id ipsum, in eo loco 

ubi nos posuimus et vulgata habet editio ut impleretur quod dictum est per 

prophetam dicentem, ibi scriptum per Isaiam prophetam dicentem." 

Quod quia minime inueniebatur in Esaia, arbitror postea a prudentibus uiris esse 

sublatum. Sed mihi uidetur in principio ita editum, quod scriptum est: per Asaph 

prophetam dicentem (septuagesimus septimus enim psalmus, de quo hoc sumptum 

est testimonium, Asaph prophetae titulo inscribitur) et primum scriptorem non 

intellexisse Asaph et putasse scriptoris uitium atque emendasse nomen Esaiae, 

cuius uocabulum manifestius erat. Sciendum est itaque quod in psalmis et hymnis 

et canticis Dei non solum Dauid sed et ceteri quorum praescripta sunt nomina 

prophetae sint appellandi, Asaph uidelicet et Idithon et Aeman Ezraites et 

Aetham et filii Chore et reliqui quos scriptura commemorat. 

I have read in several manuscripts, and a diligent reader would perhaps be able to find it, that in 

place of this passage that we have recorded and that the vulgate edition has as: "in order that 

what was spoken through the prophet might be fulifilled, saying", in those manuscripts it is 

written as: "through Isaiah the prophet, saying." Because the text is not at all found in Isaiah, I 

think it was later removed by prudent men. In my judgment, it was originally published as follows: 

"[in order that what was written] through Asaph the prophet, saying." For the 77 th Psalm, from 

which this testimony was taken, is ascribed to Asaph the prophet in the title. And it seems that, 

because the first copyist did not understand "Asaph", he thought that it was a mistake of a 

copyist, and he changed the name to Isaiah, whose name was more familiar. And so one should be 

aware that in the Psalms and hymns and canticles of God, not only David but also other men 

whose names are prefixed deserve to be called prophets. This applies to men like Asaph, Idithon 

[or Jeduthun; 1 Chr 25:1-8; Pss 39, 62, 77], Aeman the Ezrahite [1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 25:1-8; Ps 88], 

Aetham [or Ethan; 1 Kgs 4:31; Ps 89], the sons of Korah [Pss 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88], and the 

rest whom Scripture mentions. 

Jerome (Hom. 11 on Psalm 77): 

Dicitur ergo in Matthaeo Haec, inquit, facta sunt, ut impleretur quod scriptum 

est in Asaph propheta. Sic invenitur in omnibus veteribus codicibus, sed homines 

ignorantes tulerunt illud. Denique multa evangelia usque hodie ita habent Ut 

impleretur quod scriptum est per Esaiam prophetam: Aperiam in parabola os 

meum, eloquar propositiones ab initio. Hoc Esaias non loquitur, sed Asaph. 

Denique et inpius ille Porphyrius proponit adversum nos hoc ipsum, et dicit: 

Evangelista vester Matthaeus tam inperitus fuit, ut diceret, quod scriptum est in 

Esaia propheta, Aperiam in parabola os meum, eloquar propositiones ab initio. … 

Sicut enim ibi error fuit scriptorum, sic et hic error fuit scriptorum, ut pro 

Asaph Esaiam scriberent. Nescientes enim (quia prima ecclesia de inperitis 

congregata fuit gentibus) ergo cum legerent in evangelio Ut impleretur quod 

scriptum est in Asaph propheta ille qui primus scribebat evangelium coepit 

dicere: Quis est iste Asaph propheta? Non erat notus in populo. Et quid fecit? ut 

dum errorem emendaret, fecit errorem. 

Consequently, Matthew says: All these things were done in fulfillment of what was spoken 

through the prophet Asaph. This is the reading found in all the ancient copies, but people in their 

ignorance changed it. As a result, to this day many versions of the Gospel read: In fulfillment of

what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, I will open my mouth in a parable, I will utter 

mysteries from of old. This is not the utterance of Isaiah, but of Asaph. 

Indeed, Porphyry, that unbeliever, makes this very point in his attack upon us and says, Your 

evangelist, Matthew, was so ignorant that he said: What is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will 

open my mouth in parables, I will utter mysteries from of old. … Now, just as this was the 

scribes' error, it was, likewise, their error to write Isaiah instead of Asaph. Hence, when the 

inexperienced (because the early church was a congregation of ignorant peoples) were reading in 

the Gospel: In fulfillment of what was written in Asaph the prophet, the one who first 

transcribed the Gospel began to ask: Who is this Asaph the prophet? He was not known to the 

people. And what did the scribe do? While emending an error, he made an error. 

Eusebius (Comm. Ps. 77): 

But the Gospel explains these things, in which it says: Jesus spoke all these 

things to the crowds in parables, and he was not speaking to them except 

by parable; so that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, 

saying, "I will open my mouth in parables; I will proclaim what has been 

hidden from the foundation [of the world]." But through what prophet were 

these things spoken, or was it through the Asaph lying before us? What 

some do not understand is the explanation set forth in the Gospel, namely, 

"through Isaiah the prophet"; but indeed, in the accurate copies (evn de. ge 

toi/j avkribe,sin avntigra,foij), lacking the explanation "through Isaiah", 

it simply says: so that what was spoken through the prophet might be 

fulfilled, saying, "I will open my mouth in parables; I will proclaim what has 

been hidden from the foundation [of the world]", which indeed is contained 

in the present text, not in the prophecy of Isaiah. 

Compare: 

LXX Psalm 77:2 avnoi,xw evn parabolai/j to. sto,ma mou fqe,gxomai 

problh,mata avpV avrch/j 

This reading is factually wrong (Ps 77:2 is attributed to Asaph). It is probably 

inspired from context: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:3 ou-toj ga,r evstin o` r`hqei.j dia. VHsai

On the other hand the support is quite good (note the church fathers). 

Hort thinks it's genuine. He notes the cases where tou/ profh,tou has been 

replaced by a prophets name. Most of these add the correct name. 

Two times Isaiah has been added correctly: 

Mt 1:22: by D, 267, 954, 1582*?, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-H, sa ms , arm, Ir Lat 

Mt 21:4: by M mg , 42, pc, a, c, h, bo ms , Chr, Hil have Zechariah 

r 2 , vg mss , bo ms , aeth have Isaiah 

The erroneous introduction of Isaiah is limited to four passages supported only 

very slim: 

Mt 2:5: a (Micha), but correctly by 4, Sy-H marg, ms , bo ms 

Mt 2:6 01 mg (Micha) 

Mt 2:15 Sy-S (Hosea) 

Mt 27:9 21, 1079, l (Zechariah) but correctly by 22, Sy-H marg 

Hort writes: "It is difficult not to think VHsai

Compare: 

Wayne C. Kannaday "Apologetic discourse and the scribal tradition", SBL 2004, 

p. 70-75 [argues for VHsai

TVU 172 


NA 27 Matthew 13:35 o[pwj plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj\ 

avnoi,xw evn parabolai/j to. sto,ma mou( evreu,xomai kekrumme,na avpo. 

katabolh/j Îko,smouÐÅ 

BYZ Matthew 13:35 o[pwj plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj 

VAnoi,xw evn parabolai/j to. sto,ma mou evreu,xomai kekrumme,na avpo. 

katabolh/j ko,smou 

T&T #40 

omit: 01 C1 , B, f1, 22, 279*, 1192, 1210, 2586, 

e, k, (Sy-S, Sy-C), Or, Eus, WH, NA 25 , Gre, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL 

Sy-S, Sy-C have "… from of old" (Burkitt) 

Weiss, Bois have the word. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

LXX Psalm 77:2 

avnoi,xw evn parabolai/j to. sto,ma mou fqe,gxomai problh,mata avpV avrch/j 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:34 basilei,an avpo. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ 

NA 27 Luke 11:50 avpo. katabolh/j ko,smou avpo. th/j genea/j tau,thj( 

NA 27 John 17:24 o[ti hvga,phsa,j me pro. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ 

NA 27 Ephesians 1:4 kaqw.j evxele,xato h`ma/j evn auvtw/| pro. katabolh/j 

ko,smou 

NA 27 Hebrews 4:3 kai,toi tw/n e;rgwn avpo. katabolh/j ko,smou genhqe,ntwnÅ 

NA 27 Hebrews 9:26 polla,kij paqei/n avpo. katabolh/j ko,smou\ 

NA 27 1 Peter 1:20 proegnwsme,nou me.n pro. katabolh/j ko,smou 

NA 27 Revelation 13:8 evsfagme,nou avpo. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ 

NA 27 Revelation 17:8 avpo. katabolh/j ko,smou( 

katabolh/j is always coupled with ko,smou in the context of creation. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 133), thinks that the omission might be a reminiscence of 

Ps 77:2 avpV avrch/j = avpo. katabolh/j but later (Mt Com.) he rejects this view 

and sees it as an accidental omission ("hardly dispensable").


Omission wrong, brackets ok.

TVU 173 


NA 27 Matthew 13:36 To,te avfei.j tou.j o;clouj h=lqen eivj th.n oivki,an Þ Å 

Þ auvtou/ f1, 1424, 1675, pc, arm mss , Or 

22 has txt. 

Or: Mt Comm tom. 11:4 line 14 

B: no umlaut 

"Then he left the crowds and went into his house." 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:14 Kai. evlqw.n o` VIhsou/j eivj th.n oivki,an Pe,trou 


kai. metaba.j evkei/qen h=lqen eivj th.n sunagwgh.n auvtw/n\ 

NA 27 Matthew 12:29 kai. to,te th.n oivki,an auvtou/ diarpa,seiÅ 

A natural addition by some careless scribes. 


TVU 174 

NA 27 Matthew 13:40 ou[twj e;stai evn th/| suntelei,a| tou/ aivw/noj \ 


Byz C, L, P, W, D, Q, 0106, 0233, 0242, f13, 33, 579, Maj, 

f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa ms , bo 

txt 01, B, D, G, f1, 22, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-1, Ir Lat , Or, Cyr 

f1: compare Anderson (Family 1, 2004), p. 99. Manuscripts 1, 22 and 1582 omit, 

against Lake 1902. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:22 kai. h` me,rimna tou/ aivw/noj 


Byz 01 C1 , C, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa mss , mae-1+2, bo, Or, Gre 


NA 27 Mark 4:19 kai. ai` me,rimnai tou/ aivw/noj 

BYZ Mark 4:19 kai. ai` me,rimnai tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou( 

Byz A, K, P, f13, 22, 33, 157, 579, 1071, Maj, f, Sy, Co, arm, geo 

txt 01, B, C, L, D, f1, 28, 892, pc, aur, l, vg 

tou/ bi,ou D, W, Q, 517, 565, 700, 1424, pc, it(b, c, d, e, ff 2 , i, q, r 1 ) 

NA 27 Luke 16:8 o[ti oi` uiòi. tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou fronimw,teroi u`pe.r tou.j 

uiòu.j tou/ fwto.j eivj th.n genea.n th.n eàutw/n eivsinÅ 

omit: pc 

NA 27 Luke 20:34 oi` uiòi. tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou gamou/sin kai. gami,skontai( 

Same variation as in Mt 13:22, but the support is better here. As already said at 

13:22, it is possibly idiomatic, tou/ aivw/noj = tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou. 


TVU 175 


NA 27 Matthew 13:44 ~Omoi,a evsti.n h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n qhsaurw/| 

kekrumme,nw| evn tw/| avgrw/|( o]n eu`rw.n a;nqrwpoj e;kruyen( kai. avpo. th/j 

cara/j auvtou/ u`pa,gei kai. pwlei/ pa,nta o[sa e;cei kai. avgora,zei to.n 

avgro.n evkei/nonÅ 

kai. pa,nta o[sa e;cei pwlei/ C, L, P, W, X, D, Q, 0106, f13, 22, 33, 157, 

579, Maj, Sy-H, Sy-Pal ms 

o[sa e;cei pwlei/ 28 

kai. pwlei/ o[sa e;cei B, pc, bo, Or, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

kai. pwlei/ pa,nta o[sa e;cei 01, D, 0242, f1, 892, pc, 

Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, mae-1+2, WH mg 

B: no umlaut 

Context, verse 46: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:46 eu`rw.n de. e[na polu,timon margari,thn avpelqw.n 

pe,praken pa,nta o[sa ei=cen kai. hvgo,rasen auvto,nÅ 

omit pa,nta: D, 1071 

No parallel, but compare: 

NA 27 Luke 18:22 avkou,saj de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ e;ti e[n soi lei,pei\ 

pa,nta o[sa e;ceij pw,lhson kai. dia,doj ptwcoi/j( kai. e[xeij qhsauro.n evn 

Îtoi/jÐ ouvranoi/j( kai. deu/ro avkolou,qei moiÅ 

The omission by B is either accidental or for stylistic reasons. 

Metzger: "Although the short reading of B and a few other witnesses is 

attractive, the absence of pa,nta may be the result of Alexandrian penchant for 

pruning unnecessary words." 

The Byzantine word order might be a harmonization to Lk 18:22. It is in principle 

also possible that the addition of pa,nta is such a harmonization, too. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 130) notes that the addition could be a conformation to 

immediate context, verse 46. 


TVU 176 


NA 27 Matthew 13:45 Pa,lin o`moi,a evsti.n h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n 

avnqrw,pw| evmpo,rw| zhtou/nti kalou.j margari,taj\ 

T&T #42 

omit: 01*, B, G, 1424, al 36 , WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

01 is corrected by 01 C1 

WH have avnqrw,pw| in the margin. 

B: no umlaut 

e;mporoj "merchant" 



w`moiw,qh h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n avnqrw,pw| spei,ranti kalo.n spe,rma 

evn tw/| avgrw/| auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 13:31 :Allhn parabolh.n pare,qhken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ o`moi,a 

evsti.n h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n ko,kkw| sina,pewj( o]n labw.n a;nqrwpoj 

e;speiren evn tw/| avgrw/| auvtou/\ 

NA 27 Matthew 13:44 ~Omoi,a evsti.n h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n qhsaurw/| 

kekrumme,nw| evn tw/| avgrw/|( o]n eu`rw.n a;nqrwpoj e;kruyen( 

tij D 

NA 27 Matthew 13:52 dia. tou/to pa/j grammateu.j maqhteuqei.j th/| basilei,a| 

tw/n ouvranw/n o[moio,j evstin avnqrw,pw| oivkodespo,th|( 

NA 27 Matthew 18:23 Dia. tou/to w`moiw,qh h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n 

avnqrw,pw| basilei/( ... omit: G, pc 2 

NA 27 Matthew 20:1 ~Omoi,a ga,r evstin h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n avnqrw,pw| 

oivkodespo,th|( o[stij evxh/lqen a[ma prwi> misqw,sasqai evrga,taj eivj to.n 

avmpelw/na auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 22:2 w`moiw,qh h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n avnqrw,pw| basilei/( 

o[stij evpoi,hsen ga,mouj tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/Å

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:32 Auvtw/n de. evxercome,nwn ivdou. prosh,negkan auvtw/| 

a;nqrwpon kwfo.n daimonizo,menonÅ 

txt C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13-part, 22, Maj, Latt, Sy-H 

omit a;nqrwpon 01, B, 124, 788(=f13-part), 892, pc, 

Sy-S, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

The omission is strange. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 128) thinks that the omission is 

original and the addition due to immediate context (13:52). 

Note the omissions at 9:32 (01 and B!) and 13:44 and 18:23! 

e;mporoj appears elsewhere 24 times in the LXX and three times in Revelation. 

Nowhere it is coupled with a;nqrwpoj. 

On the other hand Matthew couples a;nqrwpoj several times with another noun, 

it is thus not untypical. 

Overall the addition might be due to context/Matthean usage or the omission 

could be due to style/general usage. The latter appears slightly more probable. 


TVU 177 

TVU 178 

NA 27 Matthew 13:51 Sunh,kate tau/ta pa,ntaÈ le,gousin auvtw/|\ nai,Å 

BYZ Matthew 13:51 Le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Sunh,kate tau/ta pa,nta 

le,gousin auvtw/| Nai, Ku,rieÅ 

Le,gei ... 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, Q, 0233, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

(a), f, h, q, vg mss , Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1+2, bo mss 

txt 01, B, D, pc, Lat, Sy-S, sa, bo 

B: umlaut! (line 13 B, p. 1253) ovdo,ntwnÅ 51 Sunh,kate tau/ta 

Ku,rie 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, 0233, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

it(b, c, e, f, g 1 , h, q), Sy-P, Sy-H, Co 

txt 01, B, D, Q, f1, f13, 517, 1424, 1675, pc, 

Lat(a, aur, d, ff 1 , ff 2 , k, l, vg), Sy-S, Sy-C 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:28 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ pisteu,ete o[ti du,namai 

tou/to poih/saiÈ le,gousin auvtw/|\ nai. ku,rieÅ 

The Le,gei phrase originated possibly from lectionary usage. Both additions are 

possibly inspired by Mt 9:28. 

There is no reason why the words should have been omitted. 


(both variants)

TVU 179 


NA 27 Matthew 13:54 kai. evlqw.n eivj th.n patri,da auvtou/ evdi,dasken auvtou.j 

evn th/| sunagwgh/| auvtw/n( w[ste evkplh,ssesqai auvtou.j kai. le,gein\ po,qen 

tou,tw| h` sofi,a au[th kai. ai` duna,meijÈ 

VAntipatri,da 01* 

According to Tischendorf corrected by either 01 A or 01 B (= 01 C1 ). 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Acts 23:31 Oi` me.n ou=n stratiw/tai kata. to. diatetagme,non auvtoi/j 

avnalabo,ntej to.n Pau/lon h;gagon dia. nukto.j eivj th.n VAntipatri,da( 

This is possibly a reminiscence of Acts 23:31, the town Antipatris near Caesarea. 

The error lead J. Rendel Harris 1893 and later Skeat to the conclusion that 

Sinaiticus was probably written in Caesarea: "the aberration of a scribe's brain, 

as he sat writing in the neighboring city of Caesarea." (Harris: "Stichometry", 

1893) 


TVU 180 


NA 27 Matthew 13:54 kai. evlqw.n eivj th.n patri,da auvtou/ evdi,dasken auvtou.j 

evn th/| sunagwgh/| auvtw/n( w[ste evkplh,ssesqai auvtou.j kai. le,gein\ po,qen 

tou,tw| h` sofi,a au[th kai. ai` duna,meijÈ 


omit: f1, Or? 

kai. duna,meij 579, 700 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:2 kai. genome,nou sabba,tou h;rxato dida,skein evn th/| 

sunagwgh/|( kai. polloi. avkou,ontej evxeplh,ssonto le,gontej\ po,qen 

tou,tw| tau/ta( kai. ti,j h` sofi,a h` doqei/sa tou,tw|( kai. ai` duna,meij 

toiau/tai dia. tw/n ceirw/n auvtou/ gino,menaiÈ 

Probably just a careless omission. 

That Origen did not read the words is doubtful. He does not quote them first 

but later in his exegesis he writes (Origen, Comm. Mt, book X, ch. 17): 

to. de. tou,tw| "po,qen h` sofi,a au[th" plei,ona safw/j evmfai,nei ))) 

mh,pote de. evmfai,netai evpapo,rhsij peri. tou/ mhde. a;nqrwpon ei=nai ))) 

mhdV evk paideu,sewj kai. didaskali,aj evpi. tosou/ton sofi,aj kai. 

duna,mewj evlhlako,ta) 

And the saying, “Whence hath this man this wisdom,” indicates clearly ... And perhaps by 

these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but 

something diviner ... and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from 

education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. 


TVU 181 

NA 27 Matthew 13:55 ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` tou/ te,ktonoj uiò,jÈ ouvc h` mh,thr 

auvtou/ le,getai Maria.m kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ VIa,kwboj kai. VIwsh.f 

kai. Si,mwn kai. VIou,dajÈ 

BYZ Matthew 13:55 ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` tou/ te,ktonoj uiò,j ouvci, h` mh,thr 

auvtou/ le,getai Maria.m kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ VIa,kwboj kai. VIwsh/j 

kai. Si,mwn kai. VIou,daj 

VIwsh.f 01 C1 , B, C, N, Q, f1, 33, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Or, mae-1+2 

VIwsh/j K, L, W, D, P, 0106, 1582 mg , f13, 22, 565, 1241, Maj-part, 

k, q C , sa, Basil(4 th CE) 

VIwsh/ S C , 118, 157, 700, 713, 1071, pc, bo 

VIwa,nnhj 01*, D, M, U, X, G, 2, 28, 579, 1424, Maj-part, vg mss 

P103 = P77(ca. 200 CE) reads ...]hj, so either VIwsh/j or VIwa,nnhj is possible. 

This is not noted in NA. 


01: Tischendorf writes: "shf A (ut videtur) in rasura scripsit. Antea VIwa,nnhj 

videtur scriptum fuisse." 

1582: There is a tilde ~ above the f and a s is written in the margin by the 

original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). 

B: umlaut! (line 39 B, p. 1253) VIa,kwboj kai. VIwsh.f kai. Si,mwn 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:3 kai. avdelfo.j VIakw,bou kai. VIwsh/toj kai. VIou,da kai. Si,mwnoj 

BYZ Mark 6:3 avdelfo.j de. VIakw,bou kai. VIwsh/ 

01, pc 15 kai. VIou,da kai. Si,mwnoj 

, Lat: VIwsh.f 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:56 h` tou/ VIakw,bou kai. VIwsh.f mh,thr 

BYZ Matthew 27:56 h` tou/ VIakw,bou kai. VIwsh. 

mh,thr 

NA 27 Mark 15:40 Mari,a h` VIakw,bou tou/ mikrou/ kai. VIwsh/toj mh,thr 

BYZ Mark 15:40 Mari,a h` tou/ VIakw,bou tou/ mikrou/ kai. VIwsh/ mh,thr 

NA 27 Mark 15:47 Mari,a h` VIwsh/toj evqew,roun pou/ te,qeitaiÅ 

BYZ Mark 15:47 Mari,a VIwsh/ evqew,roun pou/ ti,qetai 

NA 27 Matthew 4:21 kai. proba.j evkei/qen ei=den a;llouj du,o avdelfou,j( 

VIa,kwbon to.n tou/ Zebedai,ou kai. VIwa,nnhn to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/(

NA 27 Matthew 10:2 kai. VIa,kwboj o` tou/ Zebedai,ou kai. VIwa,nnhj o` 

avdelfo.j auvtou/( 

NA 27 Matthew 17:1 to.n Pe,tron kai. VIa,kwbon kai. VIwa,nnhn to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ 

VIwa,nnhj and VIa,kwboj often appear together as brothers in the Gospels. But 

they are not the brothers of Jesus. It is only natural that some scribes 

automatically wrote VIwa,nnhj after reading VIa,kwboj. 

Regarding Joses or Joseph a decision is not really possible. External support 

clearly favors Joseph. Weiss (Mt Com.) thinks that VIwsh/j comes from Mk. 

It is possible that Joses has been used to avoid confusion with Jesus' father 

Joseph. 

The Arabic Diatessaron has Joses. 


TVU 182 



NA 27 Matthew 14:3 ~O ga.r ~Hrw,|dhj Þ krath,saj to.n VIwa,nnhn e;dhsen 

Îauvto.nÐ kai. evn fulakh/| avpe,qeto dia. ~Hrw|dia,da th.n gunai/ka 

Fili,ppou tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/\ 

T&T #43 

Þ to,te B, Q, f13, 700, pc 9 , k, sa, mae-1, arab MS , Weiss 

pc = 160, 569, 1010, 1293, 1295, 1306, 1310, 1604, 2831 

k not in NA. Jülicher: "Herodes enim, cum detinuisset Iohannen, ..." 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 6:17 Auvto.j ga.r o` ~Hrw,|dhj avpostei,laj evkra,thsen to.n 

VIwa,nnhn kai. e;dhsen auvto.n evn fulakh/| 

NA 27 Luke 3:19 ~O de. ~Hrw,|dhj o` tetraa,rchj( evlegco,menoj u`pV auvtou/ 

peri. ~Hrw|dia,doj th/j gunaiko.j tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/ kai. peri. pa,ntwn 

w-n evpoi,hsen ponhrw/n o` ~Hrw,|dhj( 

An interesting combination of B, k with Caesarean witnesses. to,te ("at that 

time") fits good here and was probably a natural addition. That 9 rather 

uninteresting Byzantine minuscules support this word seems to indicate a 

secondary cause. 

to,te is a Matthean favorite word (90 times, Mk: 6, Lk: 15, Jo: 10). 

Metzger: "The adverb appears to have been inserted in order to make it clear 

that the situation reflected in verse 3 antedates that of verses 1 and 2." 

Compare: 

14:1 At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus; 2 and he said to his servants, "This 

is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at 

work in him." 3 For (at that time) Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on 

account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 155) on the other hand thinks that the word has been 

omitted because of its remarkable position, he cannot believe that anybody 

inserted it here later. 


TVU 183 



NA 27 Matthew 14:3 ~O ga.r ~Hrw,|dhj krath,saj to.n VIwa,nnhn 

e;dhsen Îauvto.nÐ kai. evn fulakh/| avpe,qeto dia. ~Hrw|dia,da th.n gunai/ka 

Fili,ppou tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/\ 

omit 01*, B, 700, L2211, pc, ff 1 , h, q, bo mss , geo 2B , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt 01 C2 , C, D, L, W, Z, Q, 0106, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy 

D: kai. e;dhsen auvto.n evn th/| fulakh/| (Mk) 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:17 Auvto.j ga.r o` ~Hrw,|dhj avpostei,laj evkra,thsen to.n 

VIwa,nnhn kai. e;dhsen auvto.n evn fulakh/| dia. ~Hrw|dia,da th.n gunai/ka 

Fili,ppou tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/( o[ti auvth.n evga,mhsen\ 

The text is more straightforward with auvto.n. 

The meaning of de,w is broad: "bind, imprison, compel, forbid, prohibit". 

E.g. e;dhsen auvto.n evn fulakh/| from Mk simply means "put him in prison". 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) thinks that the auvto.n is from Mk. 

e;dhsen is followed by an accusative object, normally the pronoun, but there are 

exceptions: 

LXX Judges 15:4 kai. evporeu,qh Samywn kai. sune,laben triakosi,aj 

avlw,pekaj kai. e;laben lampa,daj kai. evpe,streyen ke,rkon pro.j ke,rkon 

kai. e;qhken lampa,da mi,an avna. me,son tw/n du,o ke,rkwn kai. e;dhsen 

So Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took some torches; and he turned the foxes tail to tail, and put a torch 

between each pair of tails. 

Difficult! 


TVU 184 


NA 27 Matthew 14:3 ~O ga.r ~Hrw,|dhj krath,saj to.n VIwa,nnhn e;dhsen 

Îauvto.nÐ kai. evn fulakh/| avpe,qeto dia. ~Hrw|dia,da th.n gunai/ka 

Fili,ppou tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou 

omit: D, Lat, Aug, Tis (in brackets), Bois 

(aur, f, h, q, vg mss have the word) 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 3:19 ~O de. ~Hrw,|dhj o` tetraa,rchj( evlegco,menoj u`pV auvtou/ 

peri. ~Hrw|dia,doj th/j gunaiko.j tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/ kai. peri. pa,ntwn 

w-n evpoi,hsen ponhrw/n o` ~Hrw,|dhj( 

This Herodias was the unlawful wife of Herod Antipas. She was herself a 

descendant of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip of Rome, not Philip 

the Tetrarch. She had divorced him in order to marry Herod Antipas after he 

had divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia. Her first husband 

was still alive and marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden to Jews (Le 18:16). 

Because of her Herod Antipas had put John in the prison at Machaerus. 

Possibly the omission is a harmonization to Lk? 


TVU 185 


NA 27 Matthew 14:9 kai. luphqei.j o` basileu.j dia. tou.j o[rkouj kai. tou.j 

sunanakeime,nouj evke,leusen doqh/nai Þ ( 

Þ auvth/| Q, f1, f13, 517, 565, 1424, 1675, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, mae-1 

22 has txt. 

mae-2 ends the verse with evke,leusen. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:26 kai. peri,lupoj geno,menoj o` basileu.j dia. tou.j o[rkouj 

kai. tou.j avnakeime,nouj ouvk hvqe,lhsen avqeth/sai auvth,n\ 

Harmonization to Mk or natural addition of an object. 


TVU 186 




kai. pe,myaj avpekefa,lisen Îto.nÐ VIwa,nnhn evn th/| fulakh/|Å 

omit 01*, B, Z, f1, 28, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

txt 01 C2 , C, D, L, W, Q, 0106, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj 

Only 1, 1582 omit. 22 et al. read txt. 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 14:3 ~O ga.r ~Hrw,|dhj krath,saj to.n VIwa,nnhn e;dhsen 

Îauvto.nÐ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:4 e;legen ga.r o` VIwa,nnhj auvtw/|\ … 

omit o`: 01, D, pc 5 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 9:49 VApokriqei.j de. VIwa,nnhj ei=pen\ 

BYZ Luke 9:49 VApokriqei.j de. o` VIwa,nnhj ei=pen 

NA 27 Luke 3:20 Îkai.Ð kate,kleisen to.n VIwa,nnhn evn fulakh/|Å 

VIwa,nnhj appears 26 times in Mt. Roughly half of the occurrences are without 

the article. 

Difficult to judge internally. The external support is very good. 




TVU 187 



NA 27 Matthew 14:18 o` de. ei=pen\ fe,rete, moi w-de auvtou,jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 14:18 o` de. ei=pen Fe,rete, moi auvtou,j w-de 

T&T #45 

omit: D, Q, f1, 700, pc 4 , it, Sy-S, Sy-C 

pc = 1013, 1210, 1511, 2372 

Byz C, L, P, W, X, D, f13, 22, 892, 1424, Maj 

txt 01, B, Z vid , 33 

have w-de: Lat(f, ff 1 , l, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, sa 

mae-2 omits verse 18 and 19a (kai. ... evpi. tou/ co,rtou) ! 

Tregelles has txt, but [w-de] in the margin. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 17:17 fe,rete, moi auvto.n w-deÅ 

NA 27 Mark 12:15 fe,rete, moi dhna,rion i[na i;dwÅ 

LXX: 

LXX Ezra 4:2 Asaraddwn basile,wj Assour tou/ 

evne,gkantoj h`ma/j w-de 

In the parallels these words of Jesus do not appear. 

Hoskier (Codex B, I, p. 39) notes on the txt reading: "an almost impossible 

order." He thinks that it was added in the margin of an ancestor of 01, B and 

found its way into the wrong place in the text. 

Note that the same order appears in Ezra 4:2. 

P. Williams comments on Sy-P: 

"In Matthew 14:18 P reads 'bring them to me here', which NA27 uses as a 

witness for the order fe,rete, moi auvtou,j w-de as opposed to txt's 

fe,rete, moi w-de auvtou,j. However, as the relevant aspects of P’s order 

are compulsory, P cannot be used as a witness in this way." 




TVU 188 



NA 27 Matthew 14:22 Kai. euvqe,wj hvna,gkasen tou.j maqhta.j evmbh/nai eivj to. 

ploi/on kai. proa,gein auvto.n eivj to. pe,ran( e[wj ou- avpolu,sh| tou.j 

o;cloujÅ 


omit B, S, f1, 33, 565, 700, 892, L844, L2211, pc 15 , 

bo ms , mae, arm, Eus, WH, Gre, Bois, Trg, SBL 

txt 01, C, D, L, W, Q, f13, Maj, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 


B: no umlaut 

Compare discussion at 8:23 above! 

Rating: 1 (NA clearly wrong)

TVU 189 


NA 27 Matthew 14:24 to. de. ploi/on h;dh stadi,ouj pollou.j avpo. th/j gh/j 

avpei/cen basanizo,menon u`po. tw/n kuma,twn( h=n ga.r evnanti,oj o` a;nemojÅ 

BYZ Matthew 14:24 to. de. ploi/on h;dh me,son th/j qala,sshj h=n 

basanizo,menon u`po. tw/n kuma,twn h=n ga.r evnanti,oj o` a;nemoj 

Byz 01, C, (D), L, P, W, D, 073, 0106, f1, 33, 892, (á1424), pc, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, WH mg , Trg mg , Gre, Tis, Bal 

1424: h;dh h=n me,son th/j qala,sshj 

txt B, Q, f13, 700, pc, Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, bo, mae-2, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

stadi,ouj pollou.j avpei/cen basanizo,menon evn th/| qala,ssh| 

(983), 1689=f13 c 

avpei/cen avpo. th/j gh/j stadi,ouj i`kanou,j Q, 700, Sy-C, Sy-P 

"but the ship was at a distance from the land of about 25 stadia" bo, mae-1 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 6:47 kai. ovyi,aj genome,nhj h=n to. ploi/on evn me,sw| th/j 

qala,sshj( kai. auvto.j mo,noj evpi. th/j gh/jÅ 

NA 27 John 6:19 evlhlako,tej ou=n w`j stadi,ouj ei;kosi pe,nte h' tria,konta 

qewrou/sin to.n VIhsou/n peripatou/nta evpi. th/j qala,sshj kai. evggu.j tou/ 

ploi,ou gino,menon( kai. evfobh,qhsanÅ 

Difficult to decide. The Byzantine variant could be a harmonization to Mk (so 

Weiss). The txt reading could have been inspired from Jo. But nothing is an 

exact parallel. Note also the third reading by Q etc. which is different again. 

The support is very strange. Without B it would be clearly secondary. 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.): "The [txt] reading has not enough agreement with Jo 6:19 to 

be accounted for as a conformation." 

Streeter ("Four Gospels", p. 410): 

"Which is more the probable? Obviously, since Mark was the least read and John 

the most valued of the Gospels, assimilation of Mt to the text of John in more

probable than to that of Mk; while since Mt indubitably copied Mk, an agreement 

of Mt with Mk does not look like assimilation." 

P. Williams comments on Sy-C, P: 

"It is rather peculiar that CP are cited by UBS4 in support of txt and in 

NA27 in favor of a variant from that same text. UBS4's reference to CP 

seems to be an error. The note in NA27, on the other hand, is quite 

optimistic about our ability to know the word order of the Syriac’s Vorlage. 

txt reads to. de. ploi/on h;dh stadi,ouj pollou.j avpo. th/j gh/j 

avpei/cen. NA27 cites CP in favor of … avpei/cen avpo. th/j gh/j stadi,ouj 

i`kanou,j. However, it is difficult to imagine that a Syriac witness would 

have retained the order distance –'from X' – 'was distant', even if it had 

been in its Vorlage, since this would involve a distance between subject and 

verb that would be uncommon in the language." 



Rating: 1? or – (NA probably wrong or indecisive)

TVU 190 


NA 27 Matthew 14:28 avpokriqei.j de. auvtw/| o` Pe,troj ei=pen\ 

ku,rie( eiv su. ei=( ke,leuso,n me evlqei/n pro,j se evpi. ta. u[dataÅ 


o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/| B, 1424, al, g 1 , WH, Bal 

txt 01, C, W, Q, f1, f13, 700, 892, Maj, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

o` Pe,troj auvtw/| ei=pen 33 

o` Pe,troj ei=pen D, 118, 157, 579, 1071, al, Lat 

auvtw/| Pe,troj ei=pen D, pc 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:15 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen pro.j auvto,n\ 

NA 27 Matthew 15:15 VApokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

auvtw/| o` Pe,troj ei=pen Q, 124, 788 

o` Pe,troj auvtw/| ei=pen B 

NA 27 Matthew 16:17 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

NA 27 Matthew 17:4 avpokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen tw/| VIhsou/\ 

NA 27 Matthew 21:21 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ 

ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j 1424 



NA 27 Matthew 26:33 avpokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

The normal order seems to be: avpokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

The question is why should so many witnesses change this here? The txt reading 

is probably right. 


TVU 191 


NA 27 Matthew 14:29 o` de. ei=pen\ evlqe,Å kai. kataba.j avpo. tou/ ploi,ou 

Îo`Ð Pe,troj periepa,thsen evpi. ta. u[data kai. h=lqen pro.j to.n VIhsou/nÅ 

omit 01, B, D, Eus, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL 

txt C, L, W, Q, 073, 0106, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 14:28 avpokriqei.j de. auvtw/| o` Pe,troj ei=pen\ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 17:4 avpokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen tw/| VIhsou/\ 

omit o`: H, W, Q, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 18:21 To,te proselqw.n o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

omit o`: D 

NA 27 Matthew 26:35 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pe,troj\ 

omit o`: D, 1424 

Pe,troj appears almost always with article in Mt. The omission is probably 

accidental. 


TVU 192 

NA 27 Matthew 14:29 o` de. ei=pen\ evlqe,Å kai. kataba.j avpo. tou/ ploi,ou Îo`Ð 

Pe,troj periepa,thsen evpi. ta. u[data kai. h=lqen pro.j to.n VIhsou/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 14:29 ~O de. ei=pen( VElqe,Å Kai. kataba.j avpo. tou/ ploi,ou o` 

Pe,troj periepa,thsen evpi. ta. u[data( evlqei/n pro.j to.n VIhsou/nÅ 

Byz 01 C1 , C C2 , D, L, P, W, X, D, Q, 073, 0106, f1, f13, 28, 33, 157, 565, 579, 

892, 1071, 1342, 1424, Maj, Latt, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, bo, Or, WH mg , Trg 

evlqei/n\ h=lqen ou=n 01* 

txt B, C* vid , 700, pc 7 , Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, arm, geo, WH, Trg mg 

01 reads: elqinhlqenoun with dots above the last two 

words. Tischendorf assigns this to corrector C (7 th CE). NA to 01 C1 (4.-6. CE). 

The Sahidic omits kai.. 

B: no umlaut 

Byz And, getting out of the boat, Peter started walking on the water, 

and came toward Jesus. 

txt And, getting out of the boat, Peter started walking on the water, 

to come toward Jesus. 

No parallels. 


NA 27 Matthew 14:28 avpokriqei.j de. auvtw/| o` Pe,troj ei=pen\ ku,rie( eiv su. 

ei=( ke,leuso,n me evlqei/n pro,j se evpi. ta. u[dataÅ 

This episode with Peter is unique to Mt. 

It appears that evlqei/n is a correction of kai. h=lqen because Peter did not 

reach Jesus because he was beginning to sink. Weiss thinks that evlqei/n is a 

conformation to the previous verse 28. 

On the other hand it could be argued that evlqei/n has been changed to kai. 

h=lqen, because in verse 31 Peter is so close to Jesus that Jesus could catch 

him. It is also possible that evlqei/n was considered to mean that Peter never 

actually walked on the water, but merely having exited the boat (intending) to go 

on the water toward Jesus. Compare K. F. A. Fritzsche, Evangelium Matthaei (Leipzig, 

1826), 503-4. Fritzsche mentions that Heinrich Paulus actually used such an argument to explain 

away the miracle.

The reading of 01* is strange. Metzger notes: " Although the reading of 01* has 

the appearance of being a conflation, it may be merely an exegetical expansion 

introduced by the scribe." It is possible that the reading as it stands is the 

result of a misinterpreted correction. Perhaps in the exemplar h=lqen ou=n was 

meant as a replacement for evlqei/n or vice versa. 

The support for the txt reading is quite slim. But all newer editions read txt. 


TVU 193 




BYZ Matthew 14:30 ble,pwn de. to.n a;nemon ivscuro.n evfobh,qh kai. 

avrxa,menoj kataponti,zesqai e;kraxen le,gwn Ku,rie sw/so,n me 

omit: 01, B*, 073 vid , 33, sa, bo, mae-2, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

073 reads: ble,pwn# de. to.n a;ne@mon ev#fobh,qh … From space considerations 

it is almost certain that 073 omitted ivscuro.n. Harris writes: "From the normal 

structure of the lines it may be assumed that the manuscript did not read 

ivscuro.n." (compare "Biblical Fragments", p. X, 16) 

(Swanson has wrongly 33 for txt! K. Witte from Muenster confirms that NA is 

right against Swanson.) 

B: ivscuro.n is added in uncial in the left margin (p. 1254 C 22), acc. to 

Tischendorf by B 2 and enhanced by B 3 . 

B: no umlaut 

Difficult. No parallels. Possibly h.t. ON - ON. 

The combination of a;nemoj with ivscuro,j appears only here in the Greek Bible. 


Omission probably wrong.

TVU 194 




Not in NA and SQE! 

omit: 1, 1582* 

Only 1, 1582 omit, 22, 118 et al. have the word. 

1582: The evidence is not completely clear from the film. After sw/so,n is a free 

space. Herein a m has been added with an e written above it. From the film it is 

not completely certain, if this is really a correction. This should be checked at 

the original. 

B: no umlaut 

Possibly inspired from: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:25 ku,rie( sw/son( avpollu,meqa 


TVU 195 

NA 27 Matthew 14:33 oi` de. evn tw/| ploi,w| proseku,nhsan auvtw/| 

le,gontej\ avlhqw/j qeou/ uiò.j ei=Å 

BYZ Matthew 14:33 oi` de. evn tw/| ploi,w| evlqo,ntej proseku,nhsan auvtw/| 

le,gontej VAlhqw/j qeou/ uiò.j ei= 

Byz D, L, P, W, X, D, 0106, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, Trg 

proselqo,ntej Q, f13, 1424, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C 

txt 01, B, C, N, f1, 22, 579, 700, 892*, pc, ff 1 , bo, sa 

o;ntej 118, 209 (=f1) 

892: The word has been added in the margin. A triplett is used as insertion sign. 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 14:12 kai. proselqo,ntej 

NA 27 oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ 

Matthew 15:12 To,te proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. le,gousin auvtw/|\ 

It is in principle possible that proselqo,ntej fell out here due to h.t. (PROS - 

PROS). But it is more probable that it is a harmonization to immediate context. 

On the other hand the word does not really fit here. They are all in a rather 

small boat. There is no need to "come" or "draw near". 


TVU 196 


NA 27 Matthew 14:36 kai. pareka,loun auvto.n i[na Þ mo,non a[ywntai tou/ 

kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/\ kai. o[soi h[yanto diesw,qhsanÅ 

Not in NA but SQE! 

Þ ka;n F, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 517, 713, 892, 954, 1424, 1675, al, Sy-P, arm, Or 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 6:56 kai. pareka,loun auvto.n i[na ka'n tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ 

i`mati,ou auvtou/ a[ywntai\ kai. o[soi a'n h[yanto auvtou/ evsw,|zontoÅ 

Probably a harmonization to Mk. This is typical for Caesarean witnesses. 


TVU 197 



NA 27 Matthew 15:2 dia. ti, oi` maqhtai, sou parabai,nousin th.n para,dosin 

tw/n presbute,rwnÈ ouv ga.r ni,ptontai ta.j cei/raj Îauvtw/nÐ o[tan a;rton 

evsqi,wsinÅ 

omit 01, B, D, 073, f1, 579, 700, 892, 1424, pc, f, g 1 , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt C, D, L, W, Q, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 7:3 &oi` ga.r Farisai/oi kai. pa,ntej oi` VIoudai/oi eva.n mh. 

pugmh/| ni,ywntai ta.j cei/raj ouvk evsqi,ousin( kratou/ntej th.n 

para,dosin tw/n presbute,rwn( 

The addition of the pronoun is only natural and possibly secondary. That the 

omission is a conformation to Mk 7:3 is rather improbable. 

The support is not coherent. 


External Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong) 


TVU 198 

NA 27 Matthew 15:4 o` ga.r qeo.j ei=pen\ ti,ma to.n pate,ra kai. th.n mhte,ra( 

kai,\ o` kakologw/n pate,ra h' mhte,ra qana,tw| teleuta,twÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:4 o` ga.r qeo.j evnetei,lato le,gwn( Ti,ma to.n pate,ra kai. 

th.n mhte,ra kai, ~O kakologw/n pate,ra h' mhte,ra qana,tw| teleuta,tw 

Byz 01* , C2 , C, L, W, X, D, 0106, f13-part, 22, 33, Maj, f, Sy-H, Gre 

txt 01 C1 , B, D, Q, 073, f1, 124, 788(=f13-part), 579, 700, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Or 

01: Tischendorf writes: "C a (ut videtur) ei=pen, sed prior scriptura restituta est." 

This is correct. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 7:10 Mwu?sh/j ga.r ei=pen\ ti,ma to.n pate,ra sou kai. th.n 

mhte,ra sou( kai,\ o` kakologw/n pate,ra h' mhte,ra qana,tw| teleuta,twÅ 

Compare the previous verse 3: 

NA 27 Matthew 15:3 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ dia. ti, kai. u`mei/j 

parabai,nete th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/nÈ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Mark 11:6 oi` de. ei=pan auvtoi/j kaqw.j ei=pen o` VIhsou/j 

BYZ Mark 11:6 oi` de. ei=pon auvtoi/j kaqw.j evnetei,lato o` VIhsou/j 

ei=pen 01, B, C, L, W, D, Y, f1, 124, 28, 892, 1342, Sy-S, sa, bo pt 

eivrh,kei D, (579), it 

evnetei,lato A, K, P, Q, f13, 118, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, al, Maj, Lat, Sy-H 

It is possible that the txt reading is a harmonization to Mk (which is rather 

improbable). In Mk it is Moses who is speaking, in Mt it is God. 

It is more probable that the Byzantine reading is inspired by th.n evntolh.n tou/ 

qeou/ from verse 15:3 to intensify the order (so Weiss). Note the same variation 

in Mk 11:6. 


TVU 199 

65. 


Matthew 15:6 ouv mh. timh,sei to.n pate,ra auvtou/\ 

kai. hvkurw,sate to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:6 kai, ouv mh, timh,sh| to,n pate,ra auvtou/ 

h' th,n mhte,ra auvtou/ 

kai. hvkurw,sate th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/n 

Variants: 

h' th,n mhte,ra auvtou/ C, L, W, X, D, Q, 0106, f1, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, 

NA 25 , Gre, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

kai, th,n mhte,ra auvtou/ F, 565, 1241, pc, Sy-S, mae-1, bo 

h' th,n mhte,ra 073, f13, 33, 700, 892, pc 

txt omit: 01, B, D, W, pc, a, d, e, Sy-C, sa, geo 2A , WH 

mae-2 omits complete 15:6a: ouv ... auvtou/ 

Tregelles has the words h' th,n mhte,ra auvtou/ additionally in brackets in the 

margin. 

B: no umlaut, but colon sign (?) 

Context, previous verses: 



NA 27 Matthew 15:5 u`mei/j de. le,gete\ o]j a'n ei;ph| tw/| patri. h' th/| mhtri,\ 

dw/ron o] eva.n evx evmou/ wvfelhqh/|j( 6 ouv mh. timh,sei to.n pate,ra auvtou/\ 


Parallel Mk 7:12 

NA 27 Mark 7:12 ouvke,ti avfi,ete auvto.n ouvde.n poih/sai tw/| patri. h' th/| 

mhtri,( 

BYZ Mark 7:12 kai. ouvke,ti avfi,ete auvto.n ouvde.n poih/sai tw/| patri. auvtou/ 

h' th/| mhtri, auvtou/( 

The part might have been omitted by h.t. (so Weiss). Note the strange support 

by W. This is a "non-coherent" support. 

It is of course a logical addition from the preceding verses. Also the various 

slightly different readings at this position may indicate a secondary cause. 


TVU 200 




kai. hvkurw,sate th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/n 

T&T #47 

hvkurw,sate avkuro,w "cancel; disregard" 

Byz L, W, X, D, S, F, 0106, 0233, f1, 1582 txt , 22, 33, 372, 1424, 

2737, 2786, Maj, Or pt , Did 

to.n no,mon 01* ,C2 , C, 073, f13, 2766, pc 5 , Tis, WH mg 

pc = 21, 160, 1010, 1097*, 1293 

mandatum Lat(aur, c, f, g 1 , l, q, vg), Sy-H, mae-2 

txt 01 C1 , B, D, Q, 579, 700, 892, 1582 mg , 

verbum it(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 ), Sy-S, Sy-C, Co, Or pt , WH, NA 25 

01: Tischendorf writes: "C a (ut videtur) lo,gon, sed no,mon restitutum est." 

1582: There is a tilde ~ above th.n and in the margin to.n lo,gon has been 

written by the original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 15:3 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ dia. ti, kai. u`mei/j 

parabai,nete th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/nÈ 



Related to the ei=pen / evnetei,lato case of 15:4. It is easy to imagine the 

change from the colorless lo,gon to evntolh.n. The similar variant no,mon 

supports this view. th.n evntolh.n is probably inspired by verse 3 (so Weiss). to.n 

no,mon is, according to Weiss, a reminiscence of verse 4. 

The support for lo,goj is very good. 


TVU 201 

NA 27 Matthew 15:8 o` lao.j ou-toj toi/j cei,lesi,n me tima/|( h` de. kardi,a 

auvtw/n po,rrw avpe,cei avpV evmou/\ 

BYZ Matthew 15:8 evggi,zei moi o` lao.j ou-toj tw/| sto,mati auvtw/n kai. toi/j 

cei,lesi,n me tima/| h` de. kardi,a auvtw/n( po,rrw avpe,cei avp evmou/\ 

Byz C, W, X, D, 0106, f13-part, Maj, f, q, Sy-H, arab MS 

o` lao.j ou-toj evggi,zei moi f1 (omit tw/| sto,mati auvtw/n kai. ! ) 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, 073, 124, 788(=f13-part), 33, 579, 700, 892, 1424, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Egerton 2, Cl, Or, Did 

B: umlaut! (line 39 A, p. 1255) lao.j ou-toj toi/j cei,lesi,n 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 7:6 ou-toj o` lao.j toi/j cei,lesi,n me tima/|( h` de. kardi,a 

auvtw/n po,rrw avpe,cei avpV evmou/\ 

From: 

LXX Isaiah 29:13 kai. ei=pen ku,rioj evggi,zei moi o` lao.j ou-toj toi/j 

cei,lesin auvtw/n timw/si,n me h` de. kardi,a auvtw/n po,rrw avpe,cei avpV 

evmou/ 

B adds (see Rahlfs): ... evn tw/| sto,mati auvtou/ kai. evn toi/j cei,lesin ... 

Compare P. Egerton 2: 

kalw/j VHsai

TVU 202 


NA 27 Matthew 15:11 ouv to. eivserco,menon eivj to. sto,ma koinoi/ to.n 

a;nqrwpon( avlla. to. evkporeuo,menon evk tou/ sto,matoj tou/to koinoi/ to.n 

a;nqrwponÅ 

omit: f1, 124(f13), 1071, pc, bo mss , Or! 

koinoi/ to.n a;nqrwpon 22 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 7:15 ouvde,n evstin e;xwqen tou/ avnqrw,pou eivsporeuo,menon eivj 

auvto.n o] du,natai koinw/sai auvto,n( avlla. ta. evk tou/ avnqrw,pou 

evkporeuo,mena, evstin ta. koinou/nta to.n a;nqrwponÅ 

omit: bo pt 

Possibly the phrase has been omitted to avoid repetition. 

Note the omission of the phrase in Bohairic manuscripts in both Gospels. 


TVU 203 


NA 27 Matthew 15:14 a;fete auvtou,j\ tufloi, eivsin o`dhgoi, Îtuflw/nÐ\ 

tuflo.j de. tuflo.n eva.n o`dhgh/|( avmfo,teroi eivj bo,qunon pesou/ntaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:14 a;fete auvtou,j\ o`dhgoi, eivsin tufloi, tuflw/n\ 

tuflo.j de. tuflo.n eva.n o`dhgh/| avmfo,teroi eivj bo,qunon pesou/ntai 

o`dhgo,j "guide, leader" 

Byz C, W, X, D, P, 0106, 157, 565, 1071, Maj, q, 

Tis, WH mg (with tuflw/n in brackets) 

txt 01 C1 , L, Z, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, pc, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Basil(4 th CE), NA 25 , Bois, Weiss 

o`dhgoi, eivsin tuflw/n K, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C 

o`dhgoi, eivsin tufloi, 01* ,C2 

tufloi, eivsin o`dhgoi, B, D, 0237, WH, Bal 

one of the last two: bo, sa 

tufloi, eivsin mae-2 

B: umlaut! (line 23 B, p. 1255) auvtou,j\ tufloi, eivsin 

Compare Lk: 

NA 27 Luke 6:39 Ei=pen de. kai. parabolh.n auvtoi/j\ mh,ti du,natai tuflo.j 

tuflo.n o`dhgei/nÈ ouvci. avmfo,teroi eivj bo,qunon evmpesou/ntaiÈ 

Most probably the minority readings origin in some kind of scribal confusion over 

the double/triple tuflo,j. WH omit tuflw/n. 

The unusual wordorder tufloi, eivsin o`dhgoi, is probably the original one. 

tuflw/n could have been omitted as redundant or added as clarification. 


omission probably wrong

TVU 204 



NA 27 Matthew 15:15 VApokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ fra,son h`mi/n 

th.n parabolh.n Îtau,thnÐÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:15 VApokriqei.j de. o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/| Fra,son h`mi/n 

th.n parabolh,n tau,thn 

txt C, D, L, W, D, Q, 0106, 0281, (f13), 22, 33, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, mae-1, Basil(4 th CE) 

tau,thn th.n parabolh,n f13 

omit: 01, B, Z vid , f1, 579, 700, 892, 

vg mss , sa, bo, Or, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

0237 reads: 

añpokriqeisde 

autwopetros 

eipenfrason 

Ø thnparabolhn 

after that the papyrus breaks off unfortunately. 

The first line is indented into the left margin and a line is added above an 

enlarged a to indicate a paragraph. The diple in the last line may indicate that 

the sentence ends on this line. This would mean that 0237 omits tau,thn. But 

this is far from certain. 

(compare S. Porter "NT Papyri and Parchments", Vienna, 2008, p. 88ff.) 

mae-2 has a lacuna. Schenke reconstructs with tau,thn = Byz. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:36 diasa,fhson h`mi/n th.n parabolh.n tw/n zizani,wn tou/ 

avgrou/Å 

Also: 

NA 27 Mark 4:13 Kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ouvk oi;date th.n parabolh.n tau,thn( 

NA 27 Luke 4:23 pa,ntwj evrei/te, moi th.n parabolh.n tau,thn\ 

NA 27 Luke 12:41 ku,rie( pro.j h`ma/j th.n parabolh.n tau,thn 

NA 27 Luke 15:3 Ei=pen de. pro.j auvtou.j th.n parabolh.n tau,thn le,gwn\ 

NA 27 Luke 18:9 kai. evxouqenou/ntaj tou.j loipou.j th.n parabolh.n tau,thn\

NA 27 Luke 20:9 h;rxato de. pro.j to.n lao.n le,gein th.n parabolh.n tau,thn\ 

NA 27 Luke 20:19 o[ti pro.j auvtou.j ei=pen th.n parabolh.n tau,thnÅ 

omit tau,thn: 579 

Difficult to judge. th.n parabolh.n tau,thn is a common string in the Gospels. 

It is also one of the lectionary incipits (introductions): 

ei=pen o` Ku,rioj th.n parabolh.n tau,thn ... 

Possibly tau,thn has been omitted, because the parable is not immediately 

preceding? 

See below the similar variants Mt 19:11 and 19:22. 

Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong or indecisive) 

External Rating: 1 (NA clearly wrong = omission correct) 


TVU 205 


NA 27 Matthew 15:22 kai. ivdou. gunh. Cananai,a avpo. tw/n o`ri,wn evkei,nwn 

evxelqou/sa e;krazen le,gousa\ evle,hso,n me( ku,rie uiò.j Daui,d\ h` quga,thr 

mou kakw/j daimoni,zetaiÅ 

Not in NA and SQE but in Tis! 

deinw/j f1, Or 

sevissime a 

Only 1, 1582 read thus. 1582 has kakw/j in the margin with a tilde sign ~ by the 

original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). 

B: no umlaut 

kako,j evil, bad, wrong 

deinw/j terribly; with hostility 

Probably inspired from: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:6 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( o` pai/j mou be,blhtai evn th/| oivki,a| 

paralutiko,j( deinw/j basanizo,menojÅ 

Is it possible that it got into the text of f1 from Origen's commentary? 


TVU 206 


NA 27 Matthew 15:26 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ ouvk e;stin kalo.n 

a;rton tw/n te,knwn kai. balei/n toi/j kunari,oijÅ 

e;xesti,n D, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, Or, Bois 

licet 

e;stin 

kalo.n e;stin 

B: no umlaut 

1293, Tert, Eus 

544, 1010, al, geo 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 7:27 ouv ga,r evstin kalo.n 

toi/j kunari,oij balei/nÅ 

BYZ Mark 7:27 ouv ga,r kalo.n evstin 

balei/n toi/j kunari,oij 

labei/n to.n 

labei/n to.n a;rton tw/n te,knwn kai. 

labei/n to.n a;rton tw/n te,knwn kai. 

The txt reading could be a harmonization to Mk. 

Metzger: e;xesti,n was "introduced .. in order to strengthen Jesus' reply (a 

heightening from what is appropriate or fitting to what is lawful or permitted)." 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 48) argues in the same way. 


TVU 207 


NA 27 Matthew 15:30 kai. prosh/lqon auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. e;contej meqV 

eàutw/n cwlou,j( tuflou,j( kullou,j( kwfou,j( kai. e`te,rouj pollou.j kai. 

e;rriyan auvtou.j para. tou.j po,daj auvtou/( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou,j\ 

1 2 3 4 (the better MSS are labeled red) 

c) ku) t) kw) B, 0281, pc, sa mss , mae, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt c) t) ku) kw) 01, 157, a, b, ff 2 , Sy-S, Bois 

c) kw) t) ku) C, K, P, M, 565, Maj-part 

c) t) ku) D, pc 

c) t) kw) ku) Q, f13, 700, Maj-part, 

Sy-C, Sy-P, sa mss , bo, TR, Gre, Trg, Tis, Bal 

kw) c) t) ku) L, W, D, al, l, q, vg mss , Sy-H 

kw) t) c) ku) f1, 33, 892, 1241, L844, L2211, pc, aur, vg mss , Or, SBL 

t) kw) c) ku) 579 

kw) t) ku) c) 1424 

f1: compare Anderson (Family 1, 2004), p. 99. Swanson also has f1 for the 33 

reading against NA and Lake. Both 1 and 1582 read kw) t) c) ku) (this order is 

also in Origen's Mt commentary). 

B: no umlaut 

cwlo,j "lame" 

tuflo,j "blind" 

kullo,j "crippled" 

kwfo,j "dumb, mute, deaf" 



lalou/ntaj( kullou.j u`giei/j kai. cwlou.j peripatou/ntaj kai. tuflou.j 

ble,pontaj\ kai. evdo,xasan to.n qeo.n VIsrah,lÅ ( = kw) ku) c) t)) 

The order is curiously diverse. Interestingly it is not correlated with the order 

in verse 31. There are no apparent internal reasons for the originality of a 

certain order.

Externally, if we follow the better MSS, it is pretty clear that cwlou,j was at 

the beginning: 

c) ku) t) kw) B, 0281, pc, sa mss , mae 

txt c) t) ku) kw) 01, 157, a, b, ff 2 , Sy-S 

c) t) ku) D, pc 

c) t) kw) ku) Q, f13, 700, Maj-part, Sy-C, Sy-P, sa mss , bo 

Also it can be argued that tuflou.j comes next and kwfou.j is last. This leaves 

for kullou.j position 3 and gives us the order of txt. 

This line of argumentation is quite shaky, but there is nothing better at the 

moment. 

WH have the enumeration of the four words in brackets, but no alternative in 

the margin, but only a † … † sign, indicating some "primitive error". 

Mike Holmes, supporting the f1 reading, writes (tc list 2010): 

"Which reading more likely accounts for the rise of the others? In view of 

the diversity of forms (and how fragmented the manuscript support is for 

any one of them), it is very difficult to reach a decision here. The 

chronologically earliest Greek witness is Origen, whose text finds some 

substantial support from 1+1582 (the heart of Family 1, whose archetype 

goes back to the 4 th c.) 33 892 1241 (plus the near-support from 1424 and 

L W Δ al l q vg st.ww sy h ). In view of the very slender support for the 

readings of either 01 or B, the main alternative to Origen's text appears to 

be c)t)kw)ku), printed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Greeven (good 

company to be in). In a broader sense, the choice is between a group of 

witnesses that lead with kwfou.j versus a group of witnesses that lead 

with cwlou.j (or variations thereof). In the absence of any more 

substantive or decisive criteria by which to make a decision, I followed the 

chronologically earliest reading and printed the text of Origen. [An 

observation: it is, to say the least, surprising that none of the many 

variations in v. 30 match the order of the terms in v. 31, which is nearly 

invariant in the textual tradition.]" 


TVU 208 




ble,pontaj\ kai. evdo,xasan to.n qeo.n VIsrah,lÅ 

avkou,ontaj B, F, pc, e, Sy-H mg , WH mg 

avkou,ontaj kai. lalou/ntaj N, O, S 

avkou,ontaj kai. avla,louj lalou/ntaj pc 

avla,louj lalou/ntaj kwfou.j avkou,ontaj 1071 

avkou,ontaj( avla,louj lalou/ntaj Lect pt 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:33 kai. evkblhqe,ntoj tou/ daimoni,ou evla,lhsen o` kwfo,jÅ 



kai. ptwcoi. euvaggeli,zontai\ (same in parallel Lk 7:22) 

NA 27 Matthew 12:22 To,te proshne,cqh auvtw/| daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. 

kwfo,j( kai. evqera,peusen auvto,n( w[ste to.n kwfo.n lalei/n kai. ble,peinÅ 

NA 27 Mark 7:37 kai. u`perperissw/j evxeplh,ssonto le,gontej\ kalw/j pa,nta 

pepoi,hken( kai. tou.j kwfou.j poiei/ avkou,ein kai. Îtou.jÐ avla,louj 

lalei/nÅ 

NA 27 Mark 9:25 ivdw.n de. o` VIhsou/j o[ti evpisuntre,cei o;cloj( evpeti,mhsen 

tw/| pneu,mati tw/| avkaqa,rtw| le,gwn auvtw/|\ to. a;lalon kai. kwfo.n 

pneu/ma( evgw. evpita,ssw soi( e;xelqe evx auvtou/ kai. mhke,ti eivse,lqh|j eivj 

auvto,nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 11:14 Kai. h=n evkba,llwn daimo,nion Îkai. auvto. h=nÐ kwfo,n\ 

evge,neto de. tou/ daimoni,ou evxelqo,ntoj evla,lhsen o` kwfo.j kai. 

evqau,masan oi` o;cloiÅ 

It depends a bit on the definition of kwfo,j as "mute" and/or "deaf". Possibly 

stimulated from Mt 11:5. 


TVU 209 





ble,pontaj\ kai. evdo,xasan to.n qeo.n VIsrah,lÅ 

omit: 01, f1, 22, 700*, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo, WH 

txt B, C, D, L, W, D, Q, f13, 33, (579), 1424, Maj, 

f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, WH mg , NA 25 

kai. kullou.j u`giei/j D, Q, f13, 33, 157, (579), 1424 

579 omits the words at the this position, but adds them after tuflou.j 

ble,pontaj plus kai,. 

700 has the order kwfou.j - tuflou.j - kullou.j (700 C ) - cwlou.j. 

Tregelles has txt, but additionally kullou.j u`giei/j in brackets in the margin. 

B: no umlaut 

kullo,j "crippled" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 15:30 kai. prosh/lqon auvtw/| o;cloi polloi. e;contej meqV 

eàutw/n cwlou,j( tuflou,j( kullou,j( kwfou,j( kai. e`te,rouj pollou.j kai. 

e;rriyan auvtou.j para. tou.j po,daj auvtou/( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou,j\ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 7:37 kai. u`perperissw/j evxeplh,ssonto le,gontej\ kalw/j pa,nta 

pepoi,hken( kai. tou.j kwfou.j poiei/ avkou,ein kai. Îtou.jÐ avla,louj 

lalei/nÅ 

It is possible that the term has been added to complete the list of disabilities 

from the previous verse 30. 

Metzger suggests that the words have perhaps been omitted, "because it 

seemed superfluous to say that the crippled became well and that the lame were 

walking". It is also possible that the words have been omitted from the D et al. 

reading by parablepsis from kai. to kai.. 

The combination of a noun with an adjective stands out against a sequence of 

noun-participle combinations, but it is difficult to say if this is an indication of a 

secondary origin or a reason for its omission.


TVU 210 



NA 27 Matthew 15:32 ~O de. VIhsou/j proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ 

ei=pen\ splagcni,zomai evpi. to.n o;clon( 

omit 01, W, Q, 700, L844, L2211, a, geo 1 (not in Tis!) 

txt B, C, D, L, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy, Co, 

NA 25 , WH, Tis, Weiss, Bois, Trg, Bal 

B: no umlaut 

Compare complete discussion at Mt 8:21 


add brackets

TVU 211 


NA 27 Matthew 15:39 Kai. avpolu,saj tou.j o;clouj evne,bh eivj to. ploi/on kai. 

h=lqen eivj ta. o[ria Magada,nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:39 Kai. avpolu,saj tou.j o;clouj evne,bh eivj to. ploi/on kai. 

h=lqen eivj ta. o[ria Magdala, 

Magdala, L, X, D Gr , Q, f1, f13, 22, 700, 892, Maj, Sy-H, arab MS 

Magdala,n C, N, W, 33, 565, 579, al, q, mae-1, bo 

Magada,n 01*, B, D, d 

Mageda,n 01 C2 , Lat, D Lat , Sy-S, Sy-C, (Sy-P), sa, Eus 

Syriac: 

Sy-S: Magedan, Sy-C: Magedon, Sy-P: Magdu (Legg) 

Pete Williams, Cambridge (private comment): 

"The consonants of Sy-S are MGDN and of Sy-C MGDWN. Sy-S generally writes more defective 

so it is likely that Sy-S and Sy-C are talking of the same place. Sy-P has MGDW vocalized 

Magdu. O and U are the same vowel in Western Syriac. Wilson may be right that the translations 

intend Megiddo, but we can at least debate it. Sy-S could be based on Greek MAGADAN or 

MAGEDAN. As Burkitt pointed out, Syriac translations of Greek names are not always literal. I 

think that we should avoid positing unattested Greek variants on the basis of the Syriac." 

B: umlaut? p. 1256, B 21 L, Magada,nÅ Kai. proselqo,ntej 

A chapter number obscures the place, possibly an umlaut is superimposed by the 

number. The number is framed by two dots, but this number look more like: \16\\ 

with the first dot on the right side very near the 6. It is thus possible that the 

writer of the chapter number utilized one of the umlaut dots for his purpose, 

but this is not entirely clear. It is also possible that this is just a blot. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 8:10 Kai. euvqu.j evmba.j eivj to. ploi/on meta. tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ 

h=lqen eivj ta. me,rh Dalmanouqa,Å 

Minority readings: Dalmounai W 

Mageda 28, 565, it 

Magdala, Q, f1, f13, pc 

Magada D C , Sy-S 

Melegada D*

Compare: 

Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. 

Matt 27:56; 27:61; 28:1; Mk 15:40, 15:47; 16:1, 16:9; Lk 8:2; 24:10; Jn 19:25; 20:1, 20:18 

Compare also: 

LXX Joshua 15:37 Senna kai. Adasan kai. Magadagad 

Variant: Magdalgad 

Eusebius (Onomastikon): 

Mageda,n( eivj ta. o[ria Mageda.n o` Cristo.j evpedh,mhsen( w`j o` 

Matqai/oj\ kai. o` Ma,rkoj de. th/j Megaida.n mnhmoneu,ei) kai. evsti nu/n 

h` Magaidanh. peri. th.n Gera,san) 

Both places Magada,n and Dalmanouqa, are completely unknown today. It's a 

site on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, north of Tiberias. The many 

variants indicate scribal confusion. Here and in Mk the well known Semitic word 

for "tower" Magdala has been inserted instead. 

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" writes (A. MERK): A solution is rendered difficult by the fact that 

the situation is unknown, and the direction cannot be inferred from the Gospel. The most 

plausible suggestion is that of van Kasteren (in Revue Bibl., 6 (1897) 93-9), who thinks 

Dalmanutha is the modern El-Delhamiye, about four miles south of the southern end of the lake 

near the Jordan, north of the influx of the Yarmuk. He also thinks that Magedan is represented 

by Ma‘ad, still more to the south (the change of ghimel to ayin offers no difficulty). In sound the 

transition from Magdala to Magadan is not impossible in paleography; it is indeed easily 

intelligible. 

The Talmud distinguishes between two Magdalas only. One was in the east, on the Yarmuk near 

Gadara (in the Middle Ages Jadar, now Mukes), thus acquiring the name of Magdala Gadar; as a 

much frequented watering place it was called Magdala Çeba ‘ayya (now El-Hammi, about two 

hours' journey from the southern end of the lake to the east, near a railway station, Haifa- 

Dera‘a). 

According to various passages in the Talmud, there was another Magdala near Tiberias, at a 

distance from it of about three and three-quarters miles. This Magdala, perhaps to distinguish it 

from the place similarly named east of the Jordan, is called Magdala Nunayya, "Magdala of the 

Fishes", by which its situation near the lake and plentiful fisheries appear to be indicated. 

According to the Talmud, Magdala was a wealthy town, and was destroyed by the Romans 

because of the moral depravity of its inhabitants. Josephus gives an account (Bell. jud., III, x) 

of the taking of a town in Galilee, which was situated on the lake near Tiberias and which had 

received its Greek name, Tarichea (the Hebrew name is not given), from its prosperous fisheries. 

Pliny places the town to the south of the lake, and it has been searched for there. But a due 

regard for the various references in Josephus, who was often in the town and was present at its 

capture, leaves no doubt that Tarichea lay to the north of Tiberias and thirty stadia from it 

(about three and three-quarters miles). The identity of Tarichea with Magdala Nunayya is thus 

as good as established. 

After the destruction of the Temple, Magdala Nunayya became the seat of one of the twentyfour 

priestly divisions, and several doctors of the law sprang from the town. Christian tradition

sought there the home of Mary Magdalen. If we are to believe the Melchite patriarch, 

Euthychius of Alexandria, the brother of St Basil, Peter of Sebaste, knew of a church at 

Magdala in the second half of the fourth century, which was dedicated to the memory of Mary 

Magdalen. About the middle of the sixth century, the pilgrim Theodosius reckoned Magdala's 

distance from Tiberias in the south and Heptapegon (now ‘Ain Tabgha) in the north at two miles. 

At all events the reckonings as to the relative distance between the two places is approximately 

right. At the end of the eighth century St. Willibald went as a pilgrim from Tiberias past 

Magdala to Capharnaum. In the tenth century the church and house of Mary Magdalen were 

shown. 

It is very difficult to judge if Magada,n was a real area/town in those times or 

if it was only a scribal error (MAGDALA - MAGADAN). It is also possible 

that Magada,n is correct, but small and unknown, so that scribes replaced it 

with the better known Magdala,. From the above it is clear that at least 

Magdala, was a real town, known also from Mari,a h` Magdalhnh.. It is also 

possible that both are right, e.g. Magada,n indicating an area and Magdala, 

indicating a town. 

The problem with Magdala, is that it is too far away from the cost. 

And how to explain Dalmanouqa,? 

Zahn: "That both Mt and Mk, agreeing otherwise closely, have different names 

here, indicates that none of the names was well known." 

See also discussion at Mk 8:10! 


TVU 212 



NA 27 Matthew 16:2-3 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ 

Îovyi,aj genome,nhj le,gete\ euvdi,a( purra,zei ga.r o` ouvrano,j\ 3 kai. 

prwi

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 12:54-56 :Elegen de. kai. toi/j o;cloij\ o[tan i;dhte Îth.nÐ 

nefe,lhn avnate,llousan evpi. dusmw/n( euvqe,wj le,gete o[ti o;mbroj 

e;rcetai( kai. gi,netai ou[twj\ 55 kai. o[tan no,ton pne,onta( le,gete o[ti 

kau,swn e;stai( kai. gi,netaiÅ 56 u`pokritai,( to. pro,swpon th/j gh/j kai. 

tou/ ouvranou/ oi;date dokima,zein( to.n kairo.n de. tou/ton pw/j ouvk 

oi;date dokima,zeinÈ 

54 He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, 'It is 

going to rain'; and so it happens. 55 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be 

scorching heat'; and it happens. 56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of 

earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? 

Diatessaron: 

The words are not commented on in Ephrem's commentary, but are in the Arabic 

Diatessaron. Here the words from Lk and Mt come one after another (Ciasca and 

Preuschen): 

54. Et dixit ad turbas: Cum videritis nubem orientem ab occasu, statim dicitis: 

Aqua venit; et ita fit; 55. et cum flaverit austrum, dicitis: Quia aestus erit; et fit. 

2 Et facto vespere, dicitis: Serenum erit, rubicundum est enim caelum. 3 Et 

mine dicitis: Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste caelum. Hypocritae, faciem 

caeli et terrae diiudicare nostis; signa autem huius temporis discernere nescitis. 

Very difficult. 

The only reason Metzger gives for an omission is that possibly scribes in 

climates, e.g. Egypt where a red sky does not indicate rain, omitted these words. 

But this is very improbable. 

It might be an insertion from another source or inspired by the parallel Lukan 

verses, but Weiss calls the idea that the verses have been adapted from Luke: 

"impossible". 

The testimony for both cases is good. Note the strange distribution of the 

witnesses for both cases. 

Zahn thinks of Papias as a source. WH have the passage in double brackets (= 

not genuine). 

Very strange.

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 184) notes that the omission is possibly a conformation to 

the previous Mt 12:38-39 (and also Mk 8:11-12), so also Tregelles (Account). 

Compare: 

12:38 Then some of the scribes and 

Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish 

to see a sign from you." 

39 But he answered them, 

"An evil and adulterous generation asks 

for a sign, but no sign will be given to it 

except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 

16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came, 

and to test Jesus they asked him to show 

them a sign from heaven. 

2 He answered them, 

"When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair 

weather, for the sky is red.' 3 And in the 

morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the 

sky is red and threatening.' You know how to 

interpret the appearance of the sky, but you 

cannot interpret the signs of the times. 

4 An evil and adulterous generation asks 

for a sign, but no sign will be given to it 

except the sign of Jonah." 

In his Mt Com. Weiss writes that the words are an addition by the evangelist 

from his oldest source. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the words of Mt in double brackets (= doubtful if text was 

present). 

Language: 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) notes the unusual usage of ginw,skete, which is unique this 

way in the NT, where oi=da is used instead. 

Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005, p. 652) notes that "the form 

purra,zei appears only in Byzantine writers, a further sign that the passage is a 

late interpolation". 

Compare: 

• T. Hirunuma "Matthew 16:2b-3" in: Epp and Fee, "NT Textual Criticism, its 

Significance ...", Festschrift Metzger, Oxford 1981, p. 35-45. 

• A. Garsky et al. "Documenta Q, 12:49-59", Leuven 1997, p. 228-234 


TVU 213 

NA 27 Matthew 16:4 genea. ponhra. kai. moicali.j shmei/on evpizhtei/( kai. 

shmei/on ouv doqh,setai auvth/| eiv mh. to. shmei/on VIwna/Å 

kai. katalipw.n auvtou.j avph/lqenÅ 

BYZ Matthew 16:4 Genea. ponhra. kai. moicali.j shmei/on evpizhtei/ kai. 

shmei/on ouv doqh,setai auvth/| eiv mh. to. shmei/on VIwna/ tou/ profh,touÅ 

kai. katalipw.n auvtou.j avph/lqen 

Byz C, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

it(a, b, c, e, f, ff 2 , q), vg mss , Sy, mae-1+2, bo 

txt 01, B, D, L, 579, 700, pc, Lat(aur, d, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), sa, Justin (Dial. 107:1) 

B* reads alone shmei/on aivtei/ (p. 1256 B 30). evpizhtei/ is written in the left 

margin (probably B 1 ) and aivtei/ is left unenhanced. The words are indicated by a 

vertical wave above (= exchange). 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:39 genea. ponhra. kai. moicali.j shmei/on evpizhtei/( kai. 

shmei/on ouv doqh,setai auvth/| eiv mh. to. shmei/on VIwna/ tou/ profh,touÅ 

NA 27 Luke 11:29 

kai. shmei/on ouv doqh,setai auvth/| eiv mh. to. shmei/on VIwna/Å 

BYZ Luke 11:29 VIwna/ tou/ profh,tou\ 

Byz A, C, W, Q, Y, 070, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo 

txt P45, P75, 01, B, D, L, X, 700, 892, pc, Lat, sa 

Only other parallel: 

LXX Tobit 14:4 a;pelqe eivj th.n Mhdi,an te,knon o[ti pe,peismai o[sa 

evla,lhsen Iwnaj o` profh,thj 

Very probably an addition inspired by Mt 12:39. There is no reason apparent for 

its omission. 


TVU 214 

NA 27 Matthew 16:8 gnou.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen\ ti, dialogi,zesqe evn 

eàutoi/j( ovligo,pistoi( o[ti a;rtouj ouvk e;ceteÈ 

BYZ Matthew 16:8 gnou.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ti, dialogi,zesqe evn 

eàutoi/j ovligo,pistoi o[ti a;rtouj ouvk evla,beteÈ 

T&T #49 

Byz C, L, W, X, D, f1, 22, 33, 1424, Maj, f, Sy, sa, Eus, Gre, Trg, SBL 

txt 01, B, D, Q, f13, 372, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 2737, pc 9 , Lat, mae-1, bo 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 16:7 oi` de. dielogi,zonto evn eàutoi/j le,gontej o[ti a;rtouj 

ouvk evla,bomenÅ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 8:16-17 

kai. dielogi,zonto pro.j avllh,louj o[ti a;rtouj ouvk e;cousin 

17 kai. gnou.j le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, dialogi,zesqe o[ti a;rtouj ouvk e;ceteÈ 

The question is if this is a harmonization to Mk (txt) or a harmonization to 

immediate context (Byz). The latte is more probable (so also Weiss). 


TVU 215 


NA 27 Matthew 16:12 to,te sunh/kan o[ti ouvk ei=pen prose,cein avpo. th/j 

zu,mhj tw/n a;rtwn avlla. avpo. th/j didach/j tw/n Farisai,wn kai. 

Saddoukai,wnÅ 

T&T #50 

Not in NA and SQE! 

tw/n a;rtwn f1, 517, 1424, 1478*, 1675, e, Or 

th/j zu,mhj D, Q, 124*, 788(=f13 b ), 565, pc 7 , 

a, b, d, ff 2 , Sy-S, arm, geo 1,B , mae-2 

pc = 173, 803, 1058, 1331, 2145 C , 2295, 2315 

th/j zu,mhj tw/n Farisai,wn 33, 1295* 

th/j zu,mhj tw/n Farisai,wn kai. Saddoukai,wn 01*, pc 6 , ff 1 , Sy-C, Tis 

pc = 30, (387*, 722), 785, 1093, 1279, 1402, 2297, 2714 

txt th/j zu,mhj tw/n a;rtwn 01 C2 , B, K*, L, 157, 372, 892, 1241, 2737, pc 12 , 

aur, g 1 , l, vg, Co, Or, Hier 

WH, NA 25 (both with tw/n a;rtwn in brackets) 

pc = 176, (375 C ), 805, 954, 1009, 1273 C , 1295 C , 1446, 

1478 C , 1500 C , 2585, 2605 

th/j zu,mhj tou/ a;rtou C, K C , P, W, X, G, D, f13 a,c , 124 C , 22, 387 C , 

700, 1500*, 2145*, Maj, 

c, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, geo 2A , Chrys 

579, 1240 omit tw/n a;rtwn avlla. avpo. th/j didach/j due to h.t. (tw/n - tw/n). 

P. Williams (private comment): "The Peshitta could support either the singular 

a;rtoj or plural a;rtoi, since the singular would be demanded by Syriac idiom 

regardless of the number in its Vorlage." (Note article cited below.) 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 


NA 27 Matthew 16:6 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ o`ra/te kai. prose,cete avpo. 

th/j zu,mhj tw/n Farisai,wn kai. Saddoukai,wnÅ 

... 

NA 27 Matthew 16:11 pw/j ouv noei/te o[ti ouv peri. a;rtwn ei=pon u`mi/nÈ 

prose,cete de. avpo. th/j zu,mhj tw/n Farisai,wn kai. Saddoukai,wnÅ

The short readings by f1 and D et al. are possibly intended to improve style 

and/or to make the sentence more clear. 

The reading of 01* is probably inspired from immediate context, verse 6 and 11. 

This is also supported by the incoherent support (inconspicuous Byzantine 

minuscules). It is also possible that both variants with tw/n Farisai,wn 

originated initially from a h.t. error. 

On the other hand one could argue that the txt reading is a conflation of the f1 

and the D reading (so Zahn, Comm. Mat.). 

Possibly tw/n a;rtwn or tou/ a;rtou have been added as clarification. 

Compare: 

Pete Williams, "Bread and the Peshitta in Matthew 16:11–12 and 12:4", NovT 48 

(2001) 331–33. 


TVU 216 


ti,na le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai to.n uiò.n tou/ avnqrw,pouÈ 


ti,na me le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai to.n uiò.n tou/ avnqrw,pou 

Byz C, D, L, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, it, (Sy-S, Sy-C), Ir lat , Trg mg 

txt 01, B, 579, 700, 1582*, pc, L1353, c, vg, Co, Or 

1582: Anderson notes: "The insertion of me into the text is almost certainly not 

in the hand of the corrector, but in the hand of the scribe." I agree. 

B: umlaut! (line 31 C, p. 1256) ti,na le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi 

Readings: 

ti,na le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai B, pc, vg 

ti,na oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai le,gousin 01* 

ti,na oi` a;nqrwpoi le,gousin ei=nai 01 C2 , 579, 700 

Ti,na le,gousin ei=nai oi` a;nqrwpoi 1582* 

Ti,na me le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai L, D, Q, 118, f13, 33, 565, 

Maj, it, (Sy-S, Sy-C) 

Ti,na le,gousin me oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai C, W 

Ti,na me oi` a;nqrwpoi le,gousin ei=nai D 

Ti,na me le,gousin ei=nai oi` a;nqrwpoi 1, 1582 C 

Ti,j le,gei o` o;cloj peri. tou/ uÅ tÅ aÅ( evsti.n ou-tojÈ mae-2 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 8:27 ti,na me le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=naiÈ 

NA 27 Mark 8:29 u`mei/j de. ti,na me le,gete ei=naiÈ 

NA 27 Luke 9:18 ti,na me le,gousin oi` o;cloi ei=naiÈ 

NA 27 Luke 9:20 u`mei/j de. ti,na me le,gete ei=naiÈ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 16:15 u`mei/j de. ti,na me le,gete ei=naiÈ 

The diversity of the variants seems to indicate uncertainty. It appears that the 

scribes missed the subject of the AcI to.n uiò.n at the end and inserted me 

instead, probably inspired by Mk, Lk and the following verse 15.

A parablepsis error is possible, but improbable: mele. 


TVU 217 


NA 27 Matthew 16:20 to,te diestei,lato toi/j maqhtai/j i[na mhdeni. ei;pwsin 

o[ti auvto,j evstin o` cristo,jÅ 

evpeti,mhsen B*, D, e, Sy-C, arab MS , Or mss , NA 25 , Weiss 

WH (in brackets with diestei,lato in the margin) 

Sy-S has a lacuna. 

imperavit a, b, c, ff 2 , q 

praecepit aur, f, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg 

comminatus est d 

increpavit e 

In B, diestei,lato was probably first written in the right margin (line 21 A, p. 

1257), acc. to Tischendorf by B 2 (= B C1 ). evpeti,mhsen in the text is left 

unenhanced. Later the marginal correction was crossed out and diestei,lato 

has been written in semi-cursive script into the text over evpeti,mhsen, acc. to 

Tischendorf by B 3 . 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Origen (Comm. Mat): 

o` me.n ou=n Matqai/oj pepoi,hke kata, tina tw/n avntigra,fwn to. to,te 

diestei,lato toi/j maqhtai/j i[na mhdeni. ei;pwsin o[ti auvto,j evstin o` 

Cristo,jÅ o` de. Ma/rkoj evpeti,mhsen auvtoi/j fhsin i[na mhdeni. le,gwsin 

peri. auvtou/Å o` de Louka/j evpitimh,saj fhsin auvtoi/j parh,ggeilen 

mhdeni. le,gein tou/to\ ti, de. tou/to h' o[ti kai. katV auvto.n avpokriqei.j o` 

Pe,troj ei=pe pro.j to. ti,na me le,gete ei=nai( to.n Cristo.n tou/ qeou/) 

ivste,on me,ntoi o[ti tina. tw/n avntigra,fwn tou/ kata. Matqai/on e;cei to. 

evpeti,mhsen) 

Therefore Matthew wrote, according to some of the copies, "Then he commanded the disciples 

to tell no one that he is the Christ", but Mark says, "he ordered them to speak to no one 

concerning him", and Luke says, "he ordered and instructed them to speak this to no one", but 

what is "this"? Or was it because, also according to him, Peter answered and said (in response to 

"who do you say that I am?"), "the Christ of God." Indeed, know that some of the copies of the 

Gospel of Matthew have "he ordered."

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 8:30 kai. evpeti,mhsen auvtoi/j i[na mhdeni. le,gwsin peri. auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Luke 9:21 o` de. evpitimh,saj auvtoi/j parh,ggeilen mhdeni. le,gein 

tou/to 

Meaning is about the same ("order, command"). 

Probably a harmonization to Mk/Lk. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 45) thinks that evpeti,mhsen is stronger and has been 

softened down to diestei,lato. He finds a conformation to Mk improbable, 

because the whole sentence is quite different (Mt Com.). 


TVU 218 



BYZ Matthew 16:20 to,te diestei,lato toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ i[na mhdeni. 

ei;pwsin o[ti auvto,j evstin VIhsou/j o` Cristo,j 

Byz 01 C2 , C, (D), K, W, X, f13 a,c , 22, 157, 579, 892, 1241, Maj, 

Lat(d !, f, l, q, r 1 , vg), Sy-H, sa ms , mae-1+2, bo, geo 1 , Hier 

o` cristo,j VIhsou/j D, c (not d !) 

txt 01*, B, L, D, Q, P, f1, 124, 174, 788(=f13 b ), 28, 565, 700, 1342, 1424, 

1675, al, it(a, aur, b, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 ), vg mss , Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, arm, geo 2 , 

Or, Chrys 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 16:21 VApo. to,te h;rxato o` VIhsou/j deiknu,ein toi/j maqhtai/j 

VIhsou/j Cristo,j 01*, B*, sa mss , mae, bo, NA 25 , WH 

VIhsou/j o` Cristo,j appears nowhere else in the Gospels. It also makes no real 

sense here, because the disciples (and everybody else) know that he is called 

"Jesus", the main point is that he it the Christ. 

Note discussion in next verse! 


TVU 219 


Matthew 16:20 


auvtou/ o[ti dei/ auvto.n eivj ~Ieroso,luma avpelqei/n kai. polla. paqei/n avpo. 

tw/n presbute,rwn kai. avrciere,wn kai. grammate,wn kai. avpoktanqh/nai 

kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| evgerqh/naiÅ 

VIhsou/j Cristo,j 01*, B*, sa mss2 , mae-1, bo, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

corr. by 01 C2 , B C2 

omit: 01 C1 , 579, 892, pc, Ir Lat , mae-2, arab MS 

txt 01 C2 , (B C2 ), C, (D), L, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 700, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, sa ms , bo mss , Basil(4 th CE) 

VIhsou/j B C2 , D (no article) 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

In B (p. 1257 A 25) the cs is left unenhanced. 

For 01 Tischendorf notes: "utrumque a C a punctis et obelis notatum erat. Rursus 

vero a C b , ut videtur, is restitutum est o` articulo praeposito." 

Tregelles reads Îo`Ð VIhsou/j. 

B: no umlaut 




BYZ Matthew 16:20 to,te diestei,lato toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ i[na mhdeni. 

ei;pwsin o[ti auvto,j evstin VIhsou/j o` Cristo,j 

Byz 01 C2 , C, (D), K, W, f13 a,c , 157, 579, 892, 1241, Maj, 

Lat(d !), Sy-H, sa ms , mae-1+2, bo, geo 1 , Hier 

o` cristo,j VIhsou/j D, c (not d !) 

txt 01*, B, L, D, Q, P, f1, 124, 174, 788(=f13 b ), 28, 565, 700, 1342, 1424, 

1675, al, it, vg mss , Sy-C, Sy-P, sa, arm, geo 2 , Or, Chrys 

B: no umlaut

Compare also verse 16: 

NA 27 Matthew 16:16 avpokriqei.j de. Si,mwn Pe,troj ei=pen\ su. ei= o` cristo.j 

o` uiò.j tou/ qeou/ tou/ zw/ntojÅ 

And: 


Cristou/ VIhsou/ B, Or 1/2 , Jerome, Weiss, WH mg 

Cristou/ pc, Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, pers/arab mss , Ir Lat , 

Diatess Sy , Jerome, Aug 

christi d (� D?) 

The phrase VIhsou/j Cristo,j is unique in the Gospels. Even the genitive is very 

rare (Mt 1:1, 18; Mk 1:1; Jn 1:17), only one accusative: Jo 17:3. The only term 

that comes near is: Mt 1:16 VIhsou/j o` lego,menoj cristo,jÅ 

Compare also the discussion at Mt 1:18. 

In the NT letters the term appears 11 times (Acts 9:34; 1Co 3:11; 8:6; 2Co 1:19; 

13:5; Gal 3:1; Phil 2:11; 2Thes 2:16; Heb 13:8; 2Pet 1:14; 1Jn 5:6). 

Cristo,j is probably added from the previous verse. It is interesting that both 

01 and B have this strange addition. Since it is also in the Egyptian versions, it 

must be a very early error. Unfortunately we don't have an early papyrus of this 

passage. 

It is in principle possible that Matthew wrote VIhsou/j Cristo,j to mention 

again that Jesus now has been declared as the Messiah (so Weiss), but if 

originally present there would have been no reason to delete the word. 

The omission of the article is easily explainable after h;rxato. 


TVU 220 



auvtou/ o[ti dei/ auvto.n eivj ~Ieroso,luma avpelqei/n kai. polla. paqei/n avpo. 

tw/n presbute,rwn kai. avrciere,wn kai. grammate,wn Þ kai. 

avpoktanqh/nai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| evgerqh/naiÅ 

Þ tou/ laou/ F, Q, f1, f13, 1424, 1675, arm, geo 2 , mae-1 (not mae-2), Or Lat 

Only 1, 1582 add the words. 22 et al. have txt. 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:4 pa,ntaj tou.j avrcierei/j kai. grammatei/j tou/ laou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 21:23 oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ 


NA 27 Matthew 26:47 avpo. tw/n avrciere,wn kai. presbute,rwn tou/ laou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 27:1 pa,ntej oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ 

A typical Matthean term. There is no reason for an omission. 


TVU 221 


NA 27 Matthew 17:1 Kai. meqV h`me,raj e]x paralamba,nei o` VIhsou/j to.n 

Pe,tron kai. VIa,kwbon kai. VIwa,nnhn to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ kai. avnafe,rei 

auvtou.j eivj o;roj u`yhlo.n katV ivdi,anÅ 

avna,gei D, f1, Or, bo ms , mae-2 

"levavit" d 

"inposuit" e 

"ducit" it, vg 

Only 1, 1582 read avna,gei. 22 et al. have txt. 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

avna,gw "lead or bring up" 

avnafe,rw "lead or take up" but also "offer (a sacrifice)" 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 9:2 Kai. meta. h`me,raj e]x paralamba,nei o` VIhsou/j to.n Pe,tron 

kai. to.n VIa,kwbon kai. to.n VIwa,nnhn kai. avnafe,rei auvtou.j eivj o;roj ... 

avna,gei D, 0131, 565 

NA 27 Luke 9:28 Îkai.Ð paralabw.n Pe,tron kai. VIwa,nnhn kai. VIa,kwbon 

avne,bh eivj to. o;roj proseu,xasqaiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 24:51 kai. evge,neto evn tw/| euvlogei/n auvto.n auvtou.j die,sth avpV 

auvtw/n kai. avnefe,reto eivj to.n ouvrano,nÅ 

Interesting combination of witnesses. It is possible that the meaning of 

avnafe,rw is slightly equivocal (it could mean that Jesus offers his disciples), 

therefore the change to avna,gw. 


TVU 222 


NA 27 Matthew 17:8 evpa,rantej de. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n ouvde,na ei=don eiv 

mh. auvto.n VIhsou/n mo,nonÅ 

BYZ Matthew 17:8 evpa,rantej de. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n ouvde,na ei=don eiv 

mh. to,n VIhsou/n mo,non 

to,n VIhsou/n mo,non B C2 , C*, L, D, f1, f13, 892, Maj, WH mg , Trg, Tis, Bal 

VIhsou/n mo,non W 

mo,non to,n VIhsou/n D, Lat, arm 

to,n VIhsou/n mo,non meqV eàutw/n C C , 33 (from Mk) 

no auvto.n: Sy, Co 

auvto.n VIhsou/n mo,non B*, Q, 700, WH, NA 25 

VIhsou/n auvto.n mo,non 01 

auvto.n mo,non mae-2 

In B (p. 1257 C 36), the AU of AUTON is left unenhanced. Tischendorf notes: 

"AU eraso". Thus it is possible that the deletion occurred earlier than the 

enhancement. 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 9:8 ouvke,ti ouvde,na ei=don avlla. to.n VIhsou/n mo,non meqV 

eàutw/nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 9:36 kai. evn tw/| gene,sqai th.n fwnh.n eu`re,qh VIhsou/j mo,nojÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Revelation 19:12 o] ouvdei.j oi=den eiv mh. auvto,j( 

The support for auvto.n is rather slim. It makes good sense. Possibly it has been 

added as an intensification. 

The Byzantine reading might come from Mk. No auvto.n in the variants of the 

Markan parallel. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 106) thinks that the auvto.n was not 

understood. 

Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong or indecisive)

TVU 223 


VHli,aj me.n e;rcetai kai. avpokatasth,sei pa,nta\ 

BYZ Matthew 17:11 o` de. VIhsou/j avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j( 

VHli,aj me.n e;rcetai prw/ton kai. avpokatasth,sei pa,nta\ 

Byz C, L, Z, D, f13, 892, Maj, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, D, W, Q, f1, 788(f13), 22, 33, 517, 579, 700, 1424, 1675, pc, 

Lat, Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2) 

evleu,setai Justin (Dial 49:5) 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 17:10 Kai. evphrw,thsan auvto.n oi` maqhtai. le,gontej\ ti, ou=n 

oi` grammatei/j le,gousin o[ti VHli,an dei/ evlqei/n prw/tonÈ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:11-12 Kai. evphrw,twn auvto.n le,gontej\ o[ti le,gousin oi` 

grammatei/j o[ti VHli,an dei/ evlqei/n prw/tonÈ 

12 o` de. e;fh auvtoi/j\ VHli,aj me.n evlqw.n prw/ton avpokaqista,nei pa,nta\ 

It seems that prw/ton is a repetition from verse 10 (so Weiss). The argument 

works better without the prw/ton, because the emphasis of Jesus is not on the 

prw/ton but on the h;dh h=lqen: 17:11 VHli,aj me.n e;rcetai 

17:12 VHli,aj h;dh h=lqen 




TVU 224 


NA 27 Matthew 17:12-13 le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti VHli,aj h;dh h=lqen( kai. ouvk 

evpe,gnwsan auvto.n avlla. evpoi,hsan evn auvtw/| o[sa hvqe,lhsan\ 

ou[twj kai. o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou me,llei pa,scein u`pV auvtw/nÅ 

13 to,te sunh/kan oi` maqhtai. o[ti peri. VIwa,nnou tou/ baptistou/ ei=pen 

auvtoi/jÅ 

17:12 but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to 

him whatever they pleased. 

So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands." 

13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist. 

Transposition of clauses: 

12a le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti VHli,aj h;dh h=lqen( kai. ouvk evpe,gnwsan auvto.n 

avlla. evpoi,hsan evn auvtw/| o[sa hvqe,lhsan\ 

13 to,te sunh/kan oi` maqhtai. o[ti peri. VIwa,nnou tou/ baptistou/ ei=pen 

auvtoi/jÅ 

12b ou[twj kai. o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou me,llei pa,scein u`pV auvtw/nÅ 

Support: D, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , n, r 1 ) 

normal order: aur, f, l, q, vg 

Justin (Dial. 49:5) omits 12b ! 

B: no umlaut 

The txt version can be interpreted that the words about the son of man were 

spoken about John the Baptist. In the Western order this possible 

misunderstanding is eliminated. 


TVU 225 


NA 27 Matthew 17:14 Kai. evlqo,ntwn pro.j to.n o;clon prosh/lqen auvtw/| 

a;nqrwpoj gonupetw/n auvto.n 

To,te h=lqon pro.j auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/\ mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:14 Kai. evlqo,ntej pro.j tou.j maqhta.j ei=don o;clon polu.n 

peri. auvtou.j kai. grammatei/j suzhtou/ntaj pro.j auvtou, 

NA 27 Mark 9:15 kai. euvqu.j pa/j o` o;cloj ivdo,ntej auvto.n evxeqambh,qhsan kai. 

prostre,contej hvspa,zonto auvto,nÅ 

Compare verse 19: 

NA 27 Matthew 17:19 To,te proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. tw/| VIhsou/ katV ivdi,an 

ei=pon\ dia. ti, h`mei/j ouvk hvdunh,qhmen evkbalei/n auvto,È 

Jesus comes back with Peter, James and John from the Transfiguration to the 

other disciples. 

mae-2 seems to add here 19a already (but it repeats the words at verse 19, too). 

Schenke speculates that something like Mk 9:15 (ivdo,ntej auvto.n 

evxeqambh,qhsan kai. prostre,contej hvspa,zonto auvto,n) has been omitted 

here, after the addition of mae-2.

TVU 226 


NA 27 Matthew 17:15 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( evle,hso,n mou to.n uiò,n( o[ti 

selhnia,zetai kai. kakw/j pa,scei\ 

polla,kij ga.r pi,ptei eivj to. pu/r kai. polla,kij eivj to. u[dwrÅ 

T&T #51 

txt C, D, W, X, D, f1, f13, 22, 33, 565, 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, Co(+ mae-2), 

WH mg , Trg mg , Tis 

e;cei 01, B, L, O, Z, Q, S, 579, 2766, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Bal 

torquetur b, vg ms 

vexatur ff 1 

patitur it, vg 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:24 kai. prosh,negkan auvtw/| pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj 

NA 27 Matthew 8:16 kai. pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj evqera,peusen( 

NA 27 Matthew 9:12 ... oi` ivscu,ontej ivatrou/ avllV oi` kakw/j e;contejÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:35 kai. prosh,negkan auvtw/| pa,ntaj tou.j kakw/j e;contaj 

NA 27 Matthew 15:22 h` quga,thr mou kakw/j daimoni,zetaiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 7:2 ~Ekatonta,rcou de, tinoj dou/loj kakw/j e;cwn 

kakw/j e;cwn is the more idiomatic Greek expression and the typical Matthean 

form. Both readings look similar, so that scribes might have been mislead from 

pa,scei to e;cei. A reason for a change from e;cei to pa,scei is difficult to 

imagine. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 47) thinks that e;cei is too weak for the serious illness of 

the boy. 


TVU 227 


NA 27 Matthew 17:15 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( evle,hso,n mou to.n uiò,n( o[ti 

selhnia,zetai kai. kakw/j pa,scei\ 

polla,kij ga.r pi,ptei eivj to. pu/r kai. polla,kij eivj to. u[dwrÅ 

evni,ote D, Q, f1, 22, pc, it (not d ! ), arm 

(= sometimes) 

saepe … aliquando it 

frequenter … aliquando f, ff 1 

aliquotiens … saepius d 

aliquotiens … aliquotiens q 

saepe … crebro aur, l, vg 

B: no umlaut 

Probably replaced to improve the style (avoid double polla,kij). 


TVU 228 


NA 27 Matthew 17:20 o` de. le,gei auvtoi/j\ dia. th.n ovligopisti,an u`mw/n\ 

avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n e;chte pi,stin w`j ko,kkon sina,pewj( evrei/te 

tw/| o;rei tou,tw|\ meta,ba e;nqen evkei/( kai. metabh,setai\ kai. ouvde.n 

avdunath,sei u`mi/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 17:20 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j Dia. th.n avpisti,an u`mw/n\ 

avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n eva.n e;chte pi,stin w`j ko,kkon sina,pewj evrei/te tw/| 

o;rei tou,tw| Meta,bhqi e;nteu/qen evkei/ kai. metabh,setai\ kai. ouvde.n 

avdunath,sei u`mi/n 

T&T #52 

Byz C, D, L, W, X, D, 1424, Maj, Latt, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, Q, 0281, f1, f13, 22, 33, 579, 700, 892, 1192, 2680, pc 4 , 

Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2), Or, Diatess 

Diatessaron: 

Arabic: Propter defectum fidei vestrae. (Ciasca) 

Wegen des Mangelns eures Glaubens. (Preuschen) 

Ephrem: "He said to them: On account of the smallness of your faith." (McCarthy) 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 


avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen\ w= genea. a;pistoj kai. diestramme,nh( 


kai. ouvk evpoi,hsen evkei/ duna,meij polla.j dia. th.n avpisti,an auvtw/nÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 6:30 ouv pollw/| ma/llon u`ma/j( ovligo,pistoiÈ 

NA 27 Matthew 8:26 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, deiloi, evste( ovligo,pistoiÈ 

NA 27 Matthew 14:31 kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ ovligo,piste( eivj ti, evdi,stasajÈ 

NA 27 Matthew 16:8 ti, dialogi,zesqe evn eàutoi/j( ovligo,pistoi( 

NA 27 Luke 12:28 eiv po,sw| ma/llon u`ma/j( ovligo,pistoiÅ 

ovligo,pistoj or ovligopisti,a is a rare, but typical Matthean word (only once in 

Lk 12:28): a;pistoj/-ia appears two times in Mt, ovligo,pistoj/-ia five times.

Possibly avpisti,an is inspired by Mt 17:17 and 13:58. On the other hand 

avpisti,an makes better sense, because even with little faith ("faith the size of 

a mustard seed") you can move the mountain. 




TVU 229 



BYZ Matthew 17:21 tou/to de. to. ge,noj ouvk evkporeu,etai eiv mh. evn 

proseuch/| kai. nhstei,a|Å 

T&T #53 

Byz 01 C2 , C, D, L, W, X, D, f1, f13, 22, 700, 892 mg , Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, bo pt , arm, Or, Chr, Basil(4 th CE), [Trg] 

... evkba,lletai... 01 C2 

... evxe,rcetai... 118, 205, 209, al 

txt 01*, B, Q, 0281, 788(f13), 33, 579, 892*, 1604, 2680, 

e, ff 1 , Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Pal, sa, bo pt , mae-2, geo 

B: no umlaut 

Diatessaron: The words are not cited in Ephrem's commentary, but are in the 

Arabic translation of the Diatessaron, with fasting. It cannot be judged though, 

wether the verse was taken from Mt or Mk, because the texts are woven 

together. Compare the discussion at Mk 9:29. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:28 Kai. eivselqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj oi=kon oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ katV 

ivdi,an evphrw,twn auvto,n\ o[ti h`mei/j ouvk hvdunh,qhmen evkbalei/n auvto,È 

NA 27 Mark 9:29 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ tou/to to. ge,noj evn ouvdeni. du,natai 

evxelqei/n eiv mh. evn proseuch/| Å 

BYZ evn proseuch/| kai. nhstei,a|Å 

Byz P45 vid , 01 C2 , A, C, D, L, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 892, 1342, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, Co, Gre 

txt 01*, B, 0274, k, Cl 

ouvk evkporeu,etai 33, 579, pc, arm, some Lect. 

evn ouvdeni. evxe,rcetai 1342, pc 

Compare also previous verses 19-20: 

NA 27 Matthew 17:19 To,te proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. tw/| VIhsou/ katV ivdi,an 

ei=pon\ dia. ti, h`mei/j ouvk hvdunh,qhmen evkbalei/n auvto,È 

NA 27 Matthew 17:20 o` de. le,gei auvtoi/j\ dia. th.n ovligopisti,an u`mw/n\ 

avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n e;chte pi,stin w`j ko,kkon sina,pewj( evrei/te 

tw/| o;rei tou,tw|\ meta,ba e;nqen evkei/( kai. metabh,setai\ kai. ouvde.n 

avdunath,sei u`mi/nÅ

And note: 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 7:5 i[na scola,shte th/| proseuch/| 

BYZ 1 Corinthians 7:5 i[na scola,zhte th/| nhstei,a| kai. th/| proseuch/|( 

Byz 01 C2 , Maj, Sy 

txt P11 vid , P46, 01*, B, C, D, F, G, P, Y, 33, 81, 1739, al, Latt, Co, Cl 

Origen (comm. Mt, book 13, ch. 7): from PG Migne 

πρόσχωμεν δὲ καὶ τῷ τοῦτο τὸ γένος οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ 

καὶ νηστείᾳ, ἵν' εἴ ποτε δέοι περὶ θεραπείαν ἀσχο λεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς τοιοῦτόν τι 

πεπονθότος τινός, μὴ ὁρκίζωμεν μηδὲ ἐπερω τῶμεν μηδὲ λαλῶμεν ὡς 

ἀκούοντι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ πνεύματι, ἀλλὰ «σχο λάζοντες προσευχῇ καὶ 

νηστείᾳ» ἐπι τύχωμεν προσευχόμενοι περὶ τοῦ πεπονθότος καὶ τῇ ἑαυτῶν νηστείᾳ ἀπώσωμεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον 

πνεῦμα. 

But let us also attend to this, "This kind goes not out save by prayer and fasting,“ in order 

that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering 

from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit 

as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray 

for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him. 

Chrysostom: Homily 57 on Mt 

Τὸ δὲ γένος τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται, εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ· τὸ τῶν 

δαιμόνων ἅπαν, οὐ τὸ τῶν σεληνιαζομένων λέγων μόνον. Ὁρᾷς πῶς 

αὐτοῖς ἤδη τὸν περὶ νηστείας προκαταβάλλεται λόγον; Μὴ γάρ μοι ἀπὸ τῶν 

σπανιζόντων λέγε, ὅτι τινὲς καὶ χωρὶς νηστείας ἐξέβαλον. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ περὶ 

τῶν ἐπιτιμώντων τοῦτο ἂν εἴποι τις ἑνός που καὶ δευτέρου, ἀλλὰ πάσχοντα 

ἀμήχανόν ποτε τρυφῶντα ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῆς μανίας ταύτης. Δεῖ γὰρ 

μάλιστα τοῦ πράγματος τούτου τῷ τὰ τοιαῦτα νοσοῦντι. Καὶ μὴν εἰ πίστεως 

χρεία, φησὶ, τί δεῖ νηστείας; Ὅτι μετὰ τῆς πίστεως κἀκεῖνο οὐ μικρὰν 

εἰσάγει τὴν ἰσχύν. 

But this kind goes not out, but by prayer and fasting; meaning the whole kind of evil spirits, 

not that of lunatics only. Do you see how He now proceeds to lay beforehand in them the 

foundation of His doctrine about fasting? No, argue not with me from rare cases, that some 

even without fasting have cast them out. For although one might say this, in one or two 

instances, of them that rebuke the evil spirits, yet for the patient it is a thing impossible, 

living luxuriously, to be delivered from such madness: this thing being especially necessary 

for him that is diseased in that way. “And yet, if faith be requisite,” one may say, “what 

need of fasting?” Because, together with our faith, that also brings no small power.

This verse has possibly been added from Mk. In Mk it is Jesus' only answer 

regarding the unclean spirit. In Mt his answer is that of the mustard seed faith: 

"Why could we not cast it out?" 

Mt: "Because of your little faith." 

Mk: "This kind can come out only through prayer." 

The main problem is to think of a reason for the omission of the sentence. In Mt 

verse 21 comes like an afterthought, it is not really needed. It is possible that it 

has been omitted because it appeared to contradict verse 20a. The verse is also 

not in the Likan parallel. 

It is interesting to note that Mt 17:21 and the Markan parallel 9:29 are two of 

the three verses (the other being Lk 2:37) in which nhstei,a is mentioned in the 

Gospels. In Mt the sentence is completely omitted, in Mk kai. nhstei,a| is 

omitted by some witnesses, including 01 and B. Deliberate? But why remove only 

kai. nhstei,a| there and the full sentence here? Compare discussion at Mk 9:29! 

And note that also in 1.Co 7:5 fasting seems to have been added. 

There are three oddities: 

1. Here in Mt no witness omits kai. nhstei,a| alone. Thus, if the addition of the 

verse is secondary, then it must be a harmonization to the Markan Byz text. 

This could be explained with the limited support of the short text in Mk. It 

is possible that the reading without kai. nhstei,a| was not very widespread. 

If on the other hand this verse is original in Mt, then the addition of kai. 

nhstei,a| in Mk is a natural harmonization to Mt. 

2. No witness in Mt uses the Markan evxelqei/n (which is basically safe), but 

they have evkporeu,etai (also basically safe). No other textual variations 

occur, not even in D. This is unusual for a secondary text. One would have 

expected more harmonizations to Mk. This is also difficult to explain. 

Possibly stylistic reasons? 

3. At Mk 9:29 the two minuscules 33 and 579 read the Matthean ouvk 

evkporeu,etai in Mk, but they omit the sentence in Mt! They thus witness 

indirectly to the Matthean verse. 

It is startling how light-minded K. Aland in his textbook sweeps away all those 

difficulties.

It is interesting to consider the Eusebian canon tables. He has: 

Mt 17:14-18 [174 II] = Mk 9:17-27 [91 II] (= the healing of the boy) 

Mt 17:19-20 [175 V] = Lk 17:5-6 [200 V] (= mustard seed) 

Mk 9:28-29 [92 X] Singular! 

Mt 17:22ff. [176 II] = Mk 9:30 ff. [93 II] 

Mt 17:19 Then the disciples came to Jesus 

privately and said, "Why could we not cast it 

out?" 

20 He said to them, "Because of your little faith. 

For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of 

a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 

'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and 

nothing will be impossible for you. 

21 and this kind does not go forth except in 

prayer and fasting." 

22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said 

to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed 

into human hands, 

Mk 9:28 When he had entered the house, his 

disciples asked him privately, "Why could we not 

cast it out?" 

Lk 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase 

our faith!" 

6 The Lord replied, "If you had faith the size of 

a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry 

tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it 

would obey you. 

Mk 9:29 He said to them, "This kind can come 

out only through prayer." 

30 They went on from there and passed through 

Galilee. He did not want anyone to know it; 

Thus Eusebius did not see any similarity between Mt 17:19-20(21) and Mk 9:28- 

29. He puts 17:19-20 together with Lk 17:5-6. We do not know why Eusebius 

chose the assignment he did, but it appears possible that Eusebius did not know 

Mt 17:21. Otherwise he would probably have given this sentence an extra number 

in canon VI. It has been argued that the verse has been omitted to conform the 

passage 17:19-21 more closely to Lk and justify the Eusebian assignment. But 

this appears rather improbable. 

(for other canon table cases compare Mk 15:28, Lk 5:39, Lk 22:43-44 and Lk 

23:34) 

Compare also the discussion at Mk 9:29. 




TVU 230 


NA 27 Matthew 17:22 sustrefome,nwn de. auvtw/n evn th/| Galilai,a| ei=pen 

auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ me,llei o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou paradi,dosqai eivj 

cei/raj avnqrw,pwn( 

BYZ Matthew 17:22 avnastrefome,nwn de. auvtw/n evn th/| Galilai,a| ei=pen 

auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j Me,llei o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou paradi,dosqai eivj 

cei/raj avnqrw,pwn 

Byz C, D, L, W, X, D, Q, f13, 22, 33, 700, Maj, c, e, ff 1 , Sy, mae-1, sa pt , bo, arm 

txt 01, B, 0281 vid , f1(1 + 1582 mg ), 892, Lat 

strefome,nwn 1582*, Or pt 

u`postrefo,ntwn 579 

parago,ntwn sa pt , mae-2 ("walking along") 

1582: The addition in the margin has been written by the original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). 

B: no umlaut 

sustre,fw "gather, come together" 

participle present passive genitive masculine plural 

avnastre,fw "return" pass. "live, conduct oneself, stay" 

participle present passive genitive masculine plural 

u`postre,fw "return, turn back; go home" 

participle present active genitive masculine plural 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 9:30 Kavkei/qen evxelqo,ntej pareporeu,onto dia. th/j Galilai,aj( 

NA 27 John 7:1 Kai. meta. tau/ta periepa,tei o` VIhsou/j evn th/| Galilai,a|\ 

Difficult. u`postre,fw makes best sense in context, but is ruled out by support. 

Both words do appear nowhere else in the Gospels: 

sustre,fw 23 times in the LXX, once in Acts 

avnastre,fw 113 LXX, 9 times NT 

Weiss (Mt Com.) thinks that the misunderstood sustre,fw has been changed 

into the more usual avnastre,fw.




TVU 231 


NA 27 Matthew 17:26 eivpo,ntoj de,\ avpo. tw/n avllotri,wn( e;fh auvtw/| o` 

VIhsou/j\ a;ra ge evleu,qeroi, eivsin oi` uiòi, Þ Å 

Þ e;fh Si,mwn( Nai,Å 

le,gei o` VIhsou/j( Do.j ou=n kai. su,( w`j avllo,trioj auvtw/nÅ 

713 12th CE , Diatessaron 

B: no umlaut 

24 When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, 

"Does your teacher not pay the double drachma [= Jewish half-shekel, temple tax]?" 

25 Peter said, "Yes, he does." And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking: "What do 

you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or 

from others?" 

26 Peter said to him: "From others", 

Jesus said to him, "Then the children are free?" 

Simon said: "Yes." 

Jesus says: "Then you also give as being an alien/foreigner to them. 27 However, so that we 

do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; 

and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater laid in; take that and give it to them for you 

and me." [a stater = four drachmas] 

The full episode reads in 713 (from images): differences green, Byz = red 

17:24 VElqo,ntwn de. auvtw/n eivj Kapernaou,m( prosh/lqon oi` ta. 

di,dracma lamba,nontej tw/| Pe,trw|\ kai. ei=pon\ ~O dida,skaloj u`mw/n ouv 

telei/ ta. di,dracmaÈ 25 le,gei o` Pe,troj\ nai,\ Kai. o[te eivsh/lqon eivj 

th.n oivki,an proe,fqasen auvto.n o` VIhsou/j\ le,gwn\ ti, soi dokei/( Si,mwn\ 

oi` basilei/j th/j gh/j avpo. ti,nwn lamba,nousin te,lh h' kh/nson\ avpo. tw/n 

ui`w/n auvtw/n) h' avpo. tw/n avllotri,wn) 

26 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pe,troj\ avpo. tw/n avllotri,wn\ 

e;fh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ a;rage evleu,qeroi, eivsin oi` uiòi,È 

e;fh Si,mwn\ Nai,\ 

le,gei o` VIhsou/j( Do.j ou=n kai. su,( w`j avllo,trioj auvtw/nÅ 

27 i[na de. mh. skandali,swmen auvtou,j\ poreuqei.j eivj qa,lassan ba,le 

a;gkistron\ kai. to.n avnaba,nta prw/ton ivcqu.n a=ron\ kai. avnoi,xaj to. 

sto,ma auvtw/n eu`rh,seij evkei/ stath/ra e;gkei,menon) evkei/non labw.n do.j 

auvtoi/j avnti. evmou/ kai. sou/\ 

Note that in the addition Peter is called "Simon". 

The addition of e;gkei,menon after eu`rh,seij stath/ra is also unique. 

evkei/ is read by D, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, also. 

The addition of Pe,troj and the plural eivsh/lqon in verse 25 can be found in 

Sy-C, too. Jesus words "Then the children are free?" in verse 26 are a question 

in Sy-C, too.

A strange addition. Metzger comments: 

"The same expansion occurs also in the Arabic form of the Diatessaron (25.6). 

The nucleus of this occurs in Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, 

where the Syriac text reads: 'Give to them therefore as an alien' and the 

Armenian reads: 'Go, you also give as one of the aliens.' " 

It would be interesting to know what exactly the Diatessaron was reading at 

this passage. Preuschen in his German translation of the Arabic Diatessaron 

(1926, p. 142) gives: 

23 Und als Simon herausgegangen war nach außen, näherten sich diejenigen, welche zwei 

Drachmen für das Kopfgeld einnehmen, dem Kephas, und sie sprachen zu ihm: Euer Meister 

bezahlt nicht seine zwei Drachmen? 

24 Er sprach zu ihnen: Ja! Und als Kephas eingetreten war in das Haus, kam ihm zuvor Jesus und 

sprach zu ihm: Was meinst du, Simon, die Könige der Erde, von wem nehmen sie die Steuer und 

das Kopfgeld, von ihren Söhnen oder von Fremden? 

25 Es sprach zu ihm Simon: Von Fremden. 

Es sprach zu ihm Jesus: So sind die Kinder also frei!* 

Es sprach zu im Simon: Allerdings. [= "So it is/That's right."] 

Es sprach zu ihm Jesus: Gib ihnen auch du wie der Fremde. 

[= "Give them also you as the alien."] 

26 Und damit es sie nicht in Verlegenheit setze, gehe zum Meer und wirf den Angelhaken aus und 

der erste Fisch, (der) heraufkommt, (dem) öffne seinen Mund, (so) wirst du finden einen Stater, 

und nimm denselben und gib für mich und dich. 

* Preuschen notes in a footnote "und Kinder also frei: ein nominaler Aussagesatz 

mit pronominaler Kopula", so not a question here. 

Ciasca gives the Latin translation of the Arabic (p. 44-45) as: 

25 Dixit ei Simon: Ab extraneis. 

Dixit illi Iesus: Ergo liberi sunt filii. 

Ait illi Simon: Utique. 

Dixit ei Iesus: Da illis et tu tanquam extraneus. 

26 Ne autem in angustias deducantur, vade ad mare et mitte mamum … 

Part of it is also extant in Ephrem's commentary. 

McCarthy gives the following translation of the Syriac. This is cited a bit more 

extensively, because it is instructive (p. 221-2): 

§ 16. He spoke first to Simon and said to him, from whom do the kings of the earth take toll or 

tribute? From their sons or from others? [He said this] because they had come to obtain a pretext 

against him, for they did not seek [this tribute] from everyone. "But your teacher, perhaps he will not 

give it, and [then] we will apprehend him as a rebel. But if he gives it, he will be reckoned as an alien." 

Although the Levites were considered as aliens, nevertheless, because the Lord is their heritage 

[Deu 18:2], they are like sons and no one asks anything of them. For the king of the Jews did not 

exact tribute from the priests. Consequently, he made known to Simon that the scribes and the 

Pharisees were seeking a pretext to test him. They did not consider him as a priest. But he did not 

give them the pretext they were seeking, that by their seeking him they would show to everyone that 

he was an alien. He taught [Simon], however, that the Levites do not pay [tribute] because they are 

free sons. 

§ 17. Do not offend them. This means "Do not throw them into confusion, when you show them that it 

is a pretext for conflict that they are seeking to embark upon." Go, cast the net into the sea "Because 

they think that I am an alien, let the sea teach them that I am not only a priest, but also a king." Give 

unto them therefore as an alien. Because Simon had made them a promise when he took the net to 

go and cast it [in the sea], they went off with him. When he brought out a fish which had a shekel in its 

mouth, [with] an image of the kingdom, the proud were confounded, because they did not think that he 

was a Levite, he, concerning whom the sea and the fish testified that he was both king and priest.

Moesinger (in his 1876 Latin translation of the Armenian Ephrem, p. 161) gives: 

"Vade ergo et tu quoque da quasi unus ex alienis." 

[= "Go then also you likewise give as if you are one of the aliens."] 

Cum itaque Simon annueret, se dare et sumpto reti iret, ut id mitteret in mare, illi 

quoque cum eo abierunt. Et quum eduxisset piscem, qui staterem, domini 

symbolum, in ore habebat, illi superbi correpti et confusi sunt. 

The interpretation of this story is very difficult. 

The variant turns the statement from Jesus "Then the children are free" into a 

question. The addition does not fit in very good. First Jesus says "Then you also 

give as an alien" and then "However, so that we do not give offense to them … 

give … " 

Either you are an alien and have to give, or you are a child and don't have to give. 

Perhaps the expansion was originally meant as a replacement for "However, so 

that we do not give offense to them", not as an addition. 

Another interpretation would be to take it as: "Then you also give, as being an 

alien to them, so that we do not give offense to them." = There is no need for 

you to give (as a child), but to not giving offense to them, give them and think of 

yourself as being an alien. 

Overall the addition is not making anything clearer or smoother. 

It is very probable that this insertion into the text of manuscript 713 originally 

came from the Diatessaron. Possibly it was a marginal comment in the exemplar. 

Elsewhere 713 turns out to be a rather normal Byzantine text. No other strange 

things appear. (Pott wants to show a general closeness of 713 to the Diatessaron 

and Sy-C in Mt by discussing very selectively several minutiae, but this is 

completely unconvincing. The variants can be explained satisfactorily as 

Byzantine readings or harmonizations and conformations, typical for Byzantine 

manuscripts.) Overall this variant in 713 stands out, both in the manuscript 

tradition as such and in the manuscript itself. 

For 713 compare: 

• J. Rendel Harris "Cod. Ev. 561: Codex Algerinae Peckover" Journal of the 

Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 6 (1886) 79-89 

• August Pott "Der Griechisch-Syrische Text des Matthäus E351 im 

Verhältnis zu Tatian, SSc, Ferrar", dissertation, 1912, 52 pages 

• Tjitze Baarda "Geven als vreemdeling. Over de herkomst van een 

merkwaardige variant van Ms. 713 in Mattheus 17,26" Nederlands 

Theologisch Tijdschrift (NedThT) 42 (1988) 99-113 


TVU 232 


NA 27 Matthew 18:1 VEn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| prosh/lqon oi` maqhtai. tw/| VIhsou/ 

le,gontej\ ti,j a;ra mei,zwn evsti.n evn th/| basilei,a| tw/n ouvranw/nÈ 

h`me,ra| Q, f1, 33, 517, 700, 713, 954, 1071, 1424, 1675, pc, 

it(a, aur, b, c, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , n, r 1 ), Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Pal, arab MS , arm, 

geo, Or pt , Trg mg 

w[ra| d, f, l, q, vg 

Only 1, 1582 read h`me,ra|. 22 et al. have txt. 

1582 mg has w[ra|, written by the original scribe Ephraim. 

Origen notes both readings in his commentary: 

kata. me,n tina tw/n avntigra,fwn\ VEn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| prosh/lqon oi` 

maqhtai. tw/| VIhsou/( kata. de. a;lla\ VEn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|) 

According to some of the copies: "in that hour the disciples came to Jesus", but according to 

others: "in that day." 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 7:22 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|\ 

NA 27 Matthew 10:19 evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| 

C*, 1424: h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Matthew 22:23 VEn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Matthew 22:46 avpV evkei,nhj th/j h`me,raj 

D, W, f1, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C: w[raj (see below) 

NA 27 Matthew 24:19 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raijÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:55 VEn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| 

W: h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Mark 1:9 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij 

NA 27 Mark 2:20 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|Å 

NA 27 Mark 4:35 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Mark 8:1 VEn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij 

NA 27 Mark 13:11 evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| 

NA 27 Mark 13:17 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raijÅ 

NA 27 Mark 13:24 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij 

NA 27 Luke 5:35 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raijÅ

NA 27 Luke 6:23 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| 

579: w[ra| 

NA 27 Luke 7:21 evn evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| 

01*, L, 69: h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Luke 9:36 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij 

NA 27 Luke 17:31 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| 

NA 27 Luke 21:23 evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij\ 

NA 27 John 4:53 ÎevnÐ evkei,nh| th/| w[ra| 

NA 27 John 5:9 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|Å 

NA 27 John 14:20 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| 



NA 27 John 19:27 avpV evkei,nhj th/j w[raj 

A, Y, 69, 124, f13: h`me,raj 

20 times h`me,ra|, 

6 times w[ra|. 

Corrections from w[ra| to h`me,ra|: 4 

Corrections from h`me,ra| to w[ra|: 2 

So h`me,ra| is probably the more standard term. This is supported by the other 

changes from w[ra| to h`me,ra|. The support is significant at this place. 


TVU 233 

NA 27 Matthew 18:7 Ouvai. tw/| ko,smw| avpo. tw/n skanda,lwn\ avna,gkh ga.r 

evlqei/n ta. ska,ndala( plh.n ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| diV ou- to. 

ska,ndalon e;rcetaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 18:7 ouvai. tw/| ko,smw| avpo. tw/n skanda,lwn\ avna,gkh ga.r 

evsti,n evlqei/n ta. ska,ndala plh.n ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| evkei,nw| di ou- to. 

ska,ndalon e;rcetai 

Byz B, Wá, X, D, Q, f13, 33, 700, Maj, it(a, b, c, e, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , l, n, q, r 1 ), vg Cl , sa 

evkei,nw| ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| W 

txt 01, D, F, L, f1, 22, 579, 892, pc, 

Lat(aur, d, g 1 , vg), Sy, sa ms , mae-1+2, bo, Did 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut! (line 6 A, p. 1259) ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:24 o` me.n uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou u`pa,gei kaqw.j ge,graptai 

peri. auvtou/( ouvai. de. tw/| avnqrw,pw| evkei,nw| diV ou- o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou 

paradi,dotai\ 

NA 27 Mark 14:21 o[ti o` me.n uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou u`pa,gei kaqw.j ge,graptai 

peri. auvtou/( ouvai. de. tw/| avnqrw,pw| evkei,nw| diV ou- o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou 

paradi,dotai\ kalo.n auvtw/| eiv ouvk evgennh,qh o` a;nqrwpoj evkei/nojÅ 

NA 27 Luke 17:1 Ei=pen de. pro.j tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/\ avne,ndekto,n evstin 

tou/ ta. ska,ndala mh. evlqei/n( plh.n ouvai. diV ou- e;rcetai\ 

NA 27 Luke 22:22 o[ti o` uiò.j me.n tou/ avnqrw,pou kata. to. w`risme,non 

poreu,etai( plh.n ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| evkei,nw| diV ou- paradi,dotaiÅ 

omit tw/| avnqrw,pw: D, d, e, Sy-S, Sy-C 

A natural addition from the parallels, there is no reason for an omission. 

The support is strongly divided. Note that the Byzantine F/09 omits the word. 

In W the word has apparently been inserted at the wrong place, indicating an 

autograph without the word. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has Lk 17:1 as Q-parallel for this verse and reads plh.n ouvai. diV 

ou- e;rcetai for Q as safe. Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005) has 

plh.n ouvai. tw/| avnqrw,pw| diV ou- e;rcetai.


TVU 234 


NA 27 Matthew 18:8 Eiv de. h` cei,r sou h' o` pou,j sou skandali,zei se( 

e;kkoyon auvto.n kai. ba,le avpo. sou/\ kalo,n soi, evstin eivselqei/n eivj th.n 

zwh.n kullo.n h' cwlo.n h' du,o cei/raj h' du,o po,daj e;conta blhqh/nai 

eivj to. pu/r to. aivw,nionÅ 

in ignem aeternum 

Not in NA but SQE! 

eivj th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro,j f1, pc, Sy-C 

in gehennam ignis ff 1 

gehennam aeternam c, e 

Sy-S reads txt. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 18:9 e;conta blhqh/nai eivj th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro,jÅ 

See also discussion in Mk 9:43-47. 


TVU 235 



NA 27 Matthew 18:10 ~Ora/te mh. katafronh,shte e`no.j tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn\ 

le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti oi` a;ggeloi auvtw/n evn ouvranoi/j dia. panto.j 

ble,pousi to. pro,swpon tou/ patro,j mou tou/ evn ouvranoi/jÅ 

omit: N*, G, S, f1, 13, 22, pc, Sy-S, aur, e, ff 1 , sa mss , Cl, Or, Eus, Did pt 

Sy-C has the words. 

evn tw/| ouvranw/| B, 33, 892, pc, Basil(4 th CE), [WH mg ] 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 22:30 evn ga.r th/| avnasta,sei ou;te gamou/sin ou;te 

gami,zontai( avllV w`j a;ggeloi evn tw/| ouvranw/| eivsinÅ (same in Mk 12:25) 

NA 27 Matthew 24:36 Peri. de. th/j h`me,raj evkei,nhj kai. w[raj ouvdei.j oi=den( 

ouvde. oi` a;ggeloi tw/n ouvranw/n ouvde. o` uiò,j( eiv mh. o` path.r mo,nojÅ 

(same in Mk 13:32) 

It is possible that the term has been omitted for stylistic reasons, because it 

appears twice. On the other hand it is possible that it has been added for more 

clarity. 


TVU 236 


BYZ Matthew 18:11 h=lqen ga.r o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou Þ sw/sai to. 

avpolwlo,jÅ 

T&T #54 

Byz D, L C , W, X, D, Q C , 1 C , 22, 700, 892 mg , Maj 1360 , Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt 

add Þ zhth/sai kai. G, L C , M, 346(=f13), 157, 579, 713, 892 mg , pm 250 , Sy-H 

txt 01, B, L*, Q*, f1, f13, 33, 892*, 2680, pc 9 , 

e, ff 1 , Sy-S, Sy-Pal, sa, mae-1+2, bo pt , geo 2A , Or, Eus 

pc = 9, 146, 556, 837, 899*, 929*, 1294, 1502, 2317 

L: Tischendorf writes: "Notam inter utramque columnam positam plane ad modum 

codicis edidimus. Ab ipsa pr. m. videtur profecta esse." (folio 40) 

Lacuna: C 

B: umlaut! (line 33 A, p. 1259) tou/ evn ouvranoi/jÅ 11 12 Ti, u`mi/n 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 19:10 h=lqen ga.r o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou zhth/sai kai. sw/sai to. 

avpolwlo,jÅ 

The addition was probably inserted from Lk (so Weiss, Aland) to prepare for the 

following Lost Sheep story. Lectionary? 

There is no reason for an omission if original. 

Note that the words are in the Arabic Diatessaron, twice, once from Mt (in ch. 

27) and once from Lk (in ch. 31). In the Matthean text it does not add "seek". 

Hoskier notes (Codex B, I, p. 22): "Observe the spacing fol. 65 in W." The three 

lines in question read: 

moutouenouranois 

hlqengarouiostouanqrwpouswsai 

toapolwlos tiumindokei 

But such spaces are nothing unusual in codex W and I don't think that it 

indicates more than just a sense line. 




TVU 237 


NA 27 Matthew 18:12 Ti, u`mi/n dokei/È eva.n ge,nhtai, tini avnqrw,pw| e`kato.n 

pro,bata kai. planhqh/| e]n evx auvtw/n( ouvci. avfh,sei ta. evnenh,konta evnne,a 

Þ evpi. ta. o;rh kai. poreuqei.j zhtei/ to. planw,menonÈ 

Þ pro,bata B, Q, f13, 1424*, pc, mae-1, sa mss , arab MS 

mae-2 has a lacuna here, but Schenke reconstructs with pro,bata. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

A natural addition from immediate context. It is interesting to note that E* 

wrote pro,.. and then stopped and corrected it. 


TVU 238 



NA 27 Matthew 18:14 ou[twj ouvk e;stin qe,lhma e;mprosqen tou/ 

patro.j u`mw/n tou/ evn ouvranoi/j i[na avpo,lhtai e]n tw/n mikrw/n tou,twnÅ 

patro.j mou B, Q, 078, 0281, f13, 33, 157, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 

Maj-part [F, H, N, G], Sy-S, Sy-H, Co, arm, Or, WH, Trg, Bal 

txt 01, D C , L, W, f1, 28, 565, Maj-part[E, G, K, P, M, S, U, V, X, D], 

Latt, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H mg , Robinson, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss, Tis 

h`mw/n D*, pc 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 18:10 to. pro,swpon tou/ patro,j mou tou/ evn ouvranoi/jÅ 

patro.j u`mw/n 700 

NA 27 Matthew 18:19 para. tou/ patro,j mou tou/ evn ouvranoi/jÅ 

safe! 

NA 27 Matthew 18:35 ou[twj kai. o` path,r mou o` ouvra,nioj poih,sei u`mi/n 

path,r u`mw/n S, W, 118, 28 

Robertson ("Wordpictures") writes: 

"Observe that Westcott and Hort read mou here rather than u`mw/n after B, 

Sahidic Coptic. Either makes good sense, though 'your' carries on the picture of 

God's care for 'each one of these little ones' ( e]n tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn) 

among God's children." 

Interestingly all other occurrences in Mt are basically safe: 

patro.j u`mw/n appears 3 more times in Mt, always safe. 

patro.j mou appears 9 more times and has only the variation at 18:10 (see 

above). 

A clear reason for the variation at this position is not apparent. Tischendorf 

thinks that mou is a conformation to context verse 10 (so also Metzger). 

Caragounis (Development of Greek, 2004) notes that mou might be theologically 

motivated, without explaining this any further.

Gundry (Matthew) prefers mou on account of Matthew's inclination to 

parallelism (here with verse 10). 


TVU 239 



NA 27 Matthew 18:15 VEa.n de. a`marth,sh| Îeivj se.Ð o` avdelfo,j sou( u[page 

e;legxon auvto.n metaxu. sou/ kai. auvtou/ mo,nouÅ eva,n sou avkou,sh|( 

evke,rdhsaj to.n avdelfo,n sou\ 

BYZ Matthew 18:15 VEa.n de. a`marth,sh| eivj se. o` avdelfo,j sou u[page kai. 

e;legxon auvto.n metaxu. sou/ kai. auvtou/ mo,nou eva,n sou avkou,sh| 


txt D, L, W, X, D, Q, 078, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, mae-1+2, bo pt , Gre, Trg 

omit: 01, B, 0281, f1, 22, 579, pc, sa, bo pt , (Or), 

WH, NA 25 , Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal 

Tregelles reads txt, but has additionally eivj se. in brackets in the margin. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 17:3 VEa.n a`ma,rth| o` avdelfo,j sou evpiti,mhson auvtw/|( kai. eva.n 

metanoh,sh| a;fej auvtw/|Å 

BYZ de. a`ma,rth| eivj se. D, Y, f13, Maj 

NA 27 Luke 17:4 kai. eva.n e`pta,kij th/j h`me,raj a`marth,sh| eivj se. kai. 

e`pta,kij evpistre,yh| pro.j se. le,gwn\ metanow/( avfh,seij auvtw/|Å 

omit eivj se.: 1424, 1675, L859, Sy-S, bo ms 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:21 To,te proselqw.n o` Pe,troj ei=pen auvtw/|\ ku,rie( 

posa,kij a`marth,sei eivj evme. o` avdelfo,j mou kai. avfh,sw auvtw/|È e[wj 

e`pta,kijÈ 

o` avdelfo,j mou eivj evme. B, Q, f13, 1241, pc 

The addition of eivj se. seems to be a harmonization to verse 21 and to Lk (so 

Weiss). This is supported by the same variation at Lk 17:3. Metzger argues that 

the omission might be deliberate to make the passage applicable to sin in 

general. It is also possible that the similar sound of -h,sh| and eivj se. caused an 

accidental omission.

IQP's Crit. ed. has eivj se. in double brackets (= doubtful that text was present) 

in the text of Q (against earlier editions, which completely omitted). To the 

contrary, Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005, p. 800) thinks that Mt 

preserves Q here and he includes eivj se. in his text. Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 

101) has the form without eivj se. as safe. 

Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong (= omission right) or indecisive) 

= brackets ok.

TVU 240 


NA 27 Matthew 18:17 eva.n de. parakou,sh| auvtw/n( eivpe. th/| evkklhsi,a|\ eva.n de. 

kai. th/j evkklhsi,aj parakou,sh|( e;stw soi w[sper o` evqniko.j kai. o` 

telw,nhjÅ 


ei=pon 01, L, WH, NA 25 , Bal, SBL 

txt eivpe. B, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, Weiss, Tis 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 18:15 VEa.n de. a`marth,sh| Îeivj se.Ð o` avdelfo,j sou( u[page 

e;legxon auvto.n metaxu. sou/ kai. auvtou/ mo,nouÅ eva,n sou avkou,sh|( 


NA 27 Matthew 18:16 eva.n de. mh. avkou,sh|( para,labe meta. sou/ e;ti e[na h' 

du,o( i[na evpi. sto,matoj du,o martu,rwn h' triw/n staqh/| pa/n r`h/ma\ 

ei=pon is here imperative, too. eivpe. is the more normal usage (16 : 4 in NT). 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 4:3 eivpe. 

WHO Matthew 4:3 ei=pon 01 C1 (Tischendorf: 01 b ). 


WHO Matthew 8:8 eivpe. all 


WHO Matthew 18:17 ei=pon 01, L, SBL 


WHO Matthew 20:21 eivpe. all 


WHO Matthew 22:17 ei=pon L, 33, SBL 


WHO Matthew 24:3 ei=pon L, S, f1, 33, SBL 

Probably an error of WH or a grammatical decision.

NA 27 Luke 10:40 eivpe. 

WHO Luke 10:40 ei=pon D, L, Q, X, 1, 33, 579, 713, WH, NA 25 

NA 27 John 10:24 eivpe. 

WHO John 10:24 ei=pon 01*, (X), f1, 565, NA 25 , WH, Tis, Bal 

WH preferred ei=pon over eivpe. in all cases, where there is variation, probably 

because it is the rarer form. 


TVU 241 


NA 27 Matthew 18:17 eva.n de. parakou,sh| auvtw/n( eivpe. th/| evkklhsi,a|\ eva.n de. 

kai. th/j evkklhsi,aj parakou,sh|( e;stw soi Þ w[sper o` evqniko.j kai. o` 

telw,nhjÅ 


Þ loipo.n f1, 22, 1365, pc, mae-1, Basil(4 th CE) 1/8 

Lacuna: C, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

(to.) loipo,n adv. "finally, from now on, henceforth" 

"If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to 

listen even to the church, let such a one finally be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." 

No parallel. 

Probably an addition to intensify the saying. 


TVU 242 


NA 27 Matthew 18:20 ou- ga,r eivsin du,o h' trei/j sunhgme,noi eivj to. evmo.n 

o;noma( evkei/ eivmi evn me,sw| auvtw/nÅ 

ouvk eivsin ga,r … parV oi-j ouvk D*, (g 1 ), Sy-S 

ou- ga,r eivsin … parV oi-j ouvk D C 

g 1 reads first the ordinary verse and then additionally the D version: 

Ubi enim sunt duo vel tres congregate in nomine meo ibi sum et egw in medio eorum. 

Non enim sunt congregati in nomine meo, inter quos ego non sum. 

d: Non enim sunt duo aut tres collecti in meo nomine, aput quos non ero in medio eorum. 

Sy-C reads txt. 

D: only the first part is corrected. Scrivener assigns the correction to 

corrector D (late 7 th CE). 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

The variant is probably a misinterpretation of the ou- ga,r as ouv ga.r. 

According to Burkitt it is not in the Diatessaron. Ephrem's commentary has only 

a "where there are two, I am there" (XIV, §24, McCarthy p. 225). 

A. Lewis-Smith comments: "We could believe that the Syriac translator had 

confounded the Greek words ouv and ou- were it not that he has given us a 

perfectly idiomatic expression." 

Compare also Nestle (ExpTimes 10, 1898, p. 43), who notes an Arabic manuscript 

(edited by Lagarde, 1864), that is containing the note: "the Rumi (i.e. the Roman, 

Latin, or Greek text) shows: 'There are not gathered two or three,' etc." 

Looking this up, Lagarde suggests a Latin text from Spain as the most probable, 

in his preface. 


TVU 243 



NA 27 Matthew 18:24 avrxame,nou de. auvtou/ sunai,rein 

proshne,cqh auvtw/| ei-j ovfeile,thj muri,wn tala,ntwnÅ 

prosh,cqh ei-j auvtw/| B, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bal 

prosh,cqh auvtw/| ei-j D, pc, Trg (!) 

proshne,cqh ei-j auvtw/| 01*, Tis 

proshne,cqh auvtw/| ei-j 01 C2 , L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj 

01* also has pollw/n for muri,wn. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

prosh,cqh prosa,gw indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular 

proshne,cqh prosfe,rw indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular 

No parallel. 

prosh,cqh is a rare form and appears elsewhere only in Joshua 7:17. prosfe,rw 

is used quite often by Mt (15 times). prosa,gw appears only once in the Gospels 

(Lk 9:41). Probably prosh,cqh is a transcription error. 

Regarding the word-order, in Mt prosfe,rw is invariably followed directly by 

the pronoun. 

All this means that the B reading is extremely unusual. 


TVU 244 


NA 27 Matthew 18:26 pesw.n ou=n o` dou/loj proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn\ 

makroqu,mhson evpV evmoi,( kai. pa,nta avpodw,sw soiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 18:26 pesw.n ou=n o` dou/loj proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn Ku,rie( 

makroqu,mhson evp evmoi, kai. pa,nta soi avpodw,sw 

Byz 01, L, W, D, 058, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

it(aur, f, ff 2 , g 1 , q), vg ms , Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co(+ mae-2) 

txt B, D, Q, 700, pc, Lat(a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , h, l, r 1 , vg), Sy-S, Sy-C, Or, Chr 

Note also the Minority reading: 

o` dou/loj 

o` dou/loj evkei/noj 01 C2 , D, L, O, D, Q, S, 0281, 33, 579, 892, al, 

Lat, Sy, bo, mae-1 


NA 27 Matthew 18:28 evxelqw.n de. o` dou/loj evkei/noj 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 


NA 27 Matthew 18:25 evke,leusen auvto.n o` ku,rioj 

And next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:27 splagcnisqei.j de. o` ku,rioj 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:29 pesw.n ou=n o` su,ndouloj auvtou/ pareka,lei auvto.n 

le,gwn\ makroqu,mhson evpV evmoi,( kai. avpodw,sw soiÅ 

Difficult. Either ku,rioj has been added from the previous verse, or it has been 

omitted to harmonize it with verse 29. 


TVU 245 


NA 27 Matthew 18:27 splagcnisqei.j de. o` ku,rioj tou/ dou,lou evkei,nou 

avpe,lusen auvto.n kai. to. da,neion avfh/ken auvtw/|Å 

Not in NA, but in SQE! 

kai. pa/san th.n ovfeilh/n f1, 517, 954, 1424, 1675, pc, ff 1 , Co, Or 

1424 adds evkei,nhn 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:32 to,te proskalesa,menoj auvto.n o` ku,rioj auvtou/ le,gei 

auvtw/|\ dou/le ponhre,( pa/san th.n ovfeilh.n evkei,nhn avfh/ka, soi( evpei. 

pareka,lesa,j me\ 



da,neion, "debt", appears only here in the Gospels. It has very probably been 

changed to immediate context. 


TVU 246 

NA 27 Matthew 18:29 pesw.n ou=n o` su,ndouloj auvtou/ 

pareka,lei auvto.n le,gwn\ makroqu,mhson evpV evmoi,( kai. avpodw,sw soiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 18:29 pesw.n ou=n o` su,ndouloj auvtou/ ei.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ 

pareka,lei auvto.n le,gwn Makroqu,mhson evp evmoi, kai. avpodw,sw soi 

Byz C C , W, D, f13, 22, 33, Maj, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1+2 

kai. proseku,nei avuto.n kai. 28 

txt 01, B, C*, D, L, Q, 058, f1, 124(=f13), 579, 700, 892, 1424, al, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bo 


kai. avpodw,sw soi: 

kai. pa,nta avpodw,sw soi 01 C2 , C C , K, P, L, W, Y, G, Q, f1, f13, 22, 28, 

33, 157, 565, 579, 543, 1424, al, Lat, Co 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:26 pesw.n ou=n o` dou/loj proseku,nei auvtw/| le,gwn\ 

makroqu,mhson evpV evmoi,( kai. pa,nta avpodw,sw soiÅ 

The addition of pa,nta is clearly a harmonization to immediate context. 

It is possible that the term ei.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ has been accidentally 

omitted by h.t. On the other hand the term appears five times in the Gospels. In 

verse 26 proseku,nei auvtw/| is used. Possibly some scribes felt, that something 

like this is needed here too. The support for the omission is very good. 




TVU 247 




BYZ Matthew 18:30 o` de. ouvk h;qelen avlla. avpelqw.n e;balen auvto.n eivj 

fulakh.n e[wj ou- avpodw/| to. ovfeilo,menon 

Byz D, K, P, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 700, Maj, Gre, SBL 

txt 01, B, C, L, 892 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken uiò,n\ 




omit ou-: B, 579 vid , 892, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 24:39 kai. ouvk e;gnwsan e[wj h=lqen o` kataklusmo.j 

e[wj ou- D, 33, 157 



e[wj a'n D, K, P, L, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 157, 565, al 

e[wj 01, C, 0281, 28, 33, 700, 892, 1424, pc 

e[wj ou- a'n P53 vid , A, pc 

txt B, 067, 124, 579, 1071, Maj 

The occurrences of e[wj ou- at Mt 13:33, 14:22, 17:9 are safe. At Mt 18:34 B, 

579 vid , 892, pc omit, too. 

Compare discussion at 1:25. 


TVU 248 

NA 27 Matthew 18:35 ou[twj kai. o` path,r mou o` ouvra,nioj poih,sei u`mi/n( 

eva.n mh. avfh/te e[kastoj tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ avpo. tw/n kardiw/n u`mw/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 18:35 Ou[twj kai. o` path,r mou o` evpoura,nioj poih,sei u`mi/n 

eva.n mh. avfh/te e[kastoj tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ avpo. tw/n kardiw/n u`mw/n ta. 

paraptw,mata auvtw/nÅ 

Byz C, W, D, f13, 22 mg , 33, 892 mg , Maj, f, h, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, f1, 22*, 700, 892*, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2), Or 

892: The words have been added in the margin using a triplet of three dots as 

insertion sign. 

B: umlaut! (line 34 A, p. 1260) avpo. tw/n kardiw/n u`mw/nÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:14-15 

VEa.n ga.r avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( 


15 eva.n de. mh. avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij( 

ouvde. o` path.r u`mw/n avfh,sei ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 6:14-15 

VEa.n ga.r avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n 


15 eva.n de. mh. avfh/te toi/j avnqrw,poij ta. paraptw,mata auvtw/n( 

ouvde. o` path.r u`mw/n avfh,sei ta. paraptw,mata u`mw/n 

A natural addition. The support is Byzantine only. Possibly h.t. WN - WN. 




TVU 249 






omit avnqrw,pw| 01*, B, L, G, 28, 517, 579, 1424*, pc, mae-2, Cl, 

WH, NA 25 , Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal 

ti.ni 700, geo 1 

avndri 1424 C , pc, geo 2 (Mk) 

avnqrw,pw| ti.ni 565 

txt 01 C3 , C, D, W, D, Q, 087, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, Co, Or 

Note also: mae-2: e;xestin avpolu/sai th.n gunai/ka, sou 

01: The word has been added by a late corrector in dark, black ink and minuscule 

script. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:2 Kai. proselqo,ntej Farisai/oi evphrw,twn auvto.n 

eiv e;xestin avndri. gunai/ka avpolu/sai( peira,zontej auvto,nÅ 

Difficult. There is no reason, why the word should have been omitted, except 

maybe "in the interest of producing a more concise literary style" (Metzger). 

Possibly it was inserted to provide a direct subject. This is supported by the 

insertion of ti.ni by 700. Similarly Weiss (Textkritik, p. 134) thinks that 

avnqrw,pw| seemed necessary, because otherwise the auvtou/ would have been 

unconnected. 

It might be best to put the words in brackets. 

The support is not "coherent". 

Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong, avnqrw,pw| in brackets?)

TVU 250 



ouvk avne,gnwte o[ti o` kti,saj avpV avrch/j a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen 

auvtou,jÈ 


ouvk avne,gnwte o[ti o` poih,saj avp avrch/j a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen 

auvtou,j 

Byz 01, C, D, (L), W, Z, D, f13, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy 

txt B, Q, f1, 124(f13), 22, 700, pc, e, Co, Or 

o` poih,saj avp avrch/j to.n a;nqrwpon a;rsen 28, vg Cl 

"fecit" Lat 

"constituit" e 

B: no umlaut 

kti,zw create, make 

Compare: 

LXX Genesis 1:27 kai. evpoi,hsen o` qeo.j to.n a;nqrwpon katV eivko,na qeou/ 

evpoi,hsen auvto,n a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen auvtou,j 

NA 27 Mark 10:6 avpo. de. avrch/j kti,sewj a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen auvtou,j\ 

Difficult. It could be either a harmonization to Mk (so Hoskier) or to Genesis. A 

harmonization to the well known Genesis account seems quite probable. 

The support for txt is not that good. kti,zw is the more rare word. 

It is also possible that poih,saj is a harmonization to evpoi,hsen in the same 

verse (so Weiss). 

It might be noted here an interesting conjecture by H. Sahlin (NovT 24, 1982, 

160-79). He thinks that the original reading was evpoi,hsen a', with a = numeral 

"one". a has subsequently been taken to mean auvtou,j. Against this can be 

objected that the txt reading is a quotation from Gen 1:27. 


TVU 251 



NA 27 Matthew 19:7 le,gousin auvtw/|\ ti, ou=n Mwu?sh/j evnetei,lato dou/nai 

bibli,on avpostasi,ou kai. avpolu/sai Îauvth,nÐÈ 

omit 01, D, L, Z, Q, f1, 22, 579, 700, pc, 

Lat(a, aur, d, e, g 1 , h, l, vg), Sy-Pal, geo, WH, NA 25 , Trg 

txt B, C, W, 078, 087, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

it(b, c, f, ff 2 , q), Sy-P, Sy-H, mae, bo ms , arm, Ir Lat , WH mg , Weiss 

"his wife" Sy-S, Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:4 oi` de. ei=pan\ evpe,treyen Mwu?sh/j bibli,on avpostasi,ou 

gra,yai kai. avpolu/saiÅ 

add auvth,n N, Sy-S, sa 


NA 27 Matthew 19:8 le,gei auvtoi/j o[ti Mwu?sh/j pro.j th.n sklhrokardi,an 

u`mw/n evpe,treyen u`mi/n avpolu/sai ta.j gunai/kaj u`mw/n( avpV avrch/j de. ouv 

ge,gonen ou[twjÅ 

verse 3: 




avpolu/sai is normally followed by a pronoun. It would be only natural to add the 

pronoun here, too. 

It is possible, though improbable that the omission is a harmonization to Mk. 

The support for the omission is excellent. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) argues for the addition, "it [the auvth,n] seems unconnected 

(the evangelist refers back to verse 3)". 


TVU 252 




BYZ Matthew 19:9 le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai 

kai. o` avpolelume,nhn gamh,saj moica/taiÅ 

Byz P25(4 th CE), B, C*, W, Z, D, Q, 078, f1, f13, 209 mg , 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, c, f, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, mae-1, Basil(4 th CE), 

WH mg , Gre, [Trg] , SBL 

gamh,saj B, Z, 700, 892, 1342, Maj, Basil(4 th CE) 

gamw/n P25, C*, N, W, Y, D, Q, P, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1424 

add avpo. avndro.j 579 

moiceuqh/nai - moica/tai: P25, B, C*, N, f1 

txt 01, C C3 , D, L, S, 2*, 69, 209*, 828, 1241, pc, 

it(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , h, l, r 1 ), vg ms , Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-2, Or, WH, NA 25 

P25 reads: 

9 … moiceuqh/nai w`sau,twj kai. o` gamw/n avpolelume,nhn moica/taiÅ 

10 le,gousin oi` maqhtai. auvtou/\ eiv ou[twj ai;tioj gi,netai avnqrw,poj 

meta. th/j gunaiko,j ouv sumfe,rei … (see also variant 19:10) 

For mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai additional minority 

readings which conform the saying to the parallel in Mt 5:32 are: 

parekto.j logou/ pornei,aj poiei/ auvth,n moiceuqh/nai 

B, 0233, f1, bo [Z reads txt for this line!] 

parekto.j logou/ pornei,aj moiceuqh/nai 

mae-2 

parekto.j logou/ pornei,aj kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/taiÅ 

D, f13, 33, pc, it, Sy-C, sa, mae-1 

Z is wrongly noted for the txt reading in UBS 4 . 

B: no umlaut

Parallels: 


auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj poiei/ auvth.n moiceuqh/nai( kai. o]j eva.n 

avpolelume,nhn gamh,sh|( moica/taiÅ 

kai. o` avpolelume,nhn gamh,saj moica/tai B, pc 

omit: D, pc, a, b, d, k 

NA 27 Mark 10:11-12 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ 

kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ 12 kai. eva.n auvth. avpolu,sasa 

to.n a;ndra auvth/j gamh,sh| a;llon moica/taiÅ 



D, 28, pc, Sy omit avpo. avndro.j 

If it is an harmonization it is harmonized to Mt 5:32 (so Weiss) and not to Mk or 

Lk. Only the above variant gamw/n might be a reminiscence, a secondary variant 

reading to Lk. Also the singular reading of 579 is a harmonization to Lk. 

It is quite possible that the clause has been omitted due to h.t (moica/tai … 

moica/tai). Note that P25, B, C*, N, f1 read moiceuqh/nai - moica/tai, but this 

is due to harmonization and therefore is no argument here (as Metzger wants 

it). This has rightly been pointed out by Michael Holmes. Compare his convincing 

discussion: "The Matthean Divorce Passages" JBL 109 (1990) 651-664. 

Noteworthy is that D, it, Sy-C conform the previous passage to 5:32 (parekto.j 

logou/ pornei,aj), but omit the last clause. D etc. omit the clause in both 

passages 5:32 and 19:9. In both cases h.t. is possible. 

The support for the omission is not good. Difficult. 

Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong or indecisive) 

(best in brackets) 



TVU 253 





omit P71 vid (4th CE), 01, B, Q, e, ff 1 , g 1 , sa ms , mae, 

WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Tis, Bal 

txt P25, C, D, L, W, Z, 078, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa mss , bo 

892* omits tou/ avnqrw,pou. The words have been added in the margin using a 

triplet of three dots as insertion sign. 

B: no umlaut 

Check Mt 8:21 and extended discussion there. 


(brackets ok)

TVU 254 




P25(4 th CE) reads: 

Le,gousin oi` maqhtai. auvtou/\ eiv ou[twj ai;tioj gi,netai avnqrw,poj meta. 

th/j gunaiko,j ouv sum@fe,rei … 

B: no umlaut 

h` aivti,a "reason, cause, legal position" 

o` ai;tioj "cause, source, ground for complaint, basis for a charge" 

P25 represents a very wild, free text. 

O. Stegmüller (ZNW 37, 1938, 223-229) thinks that this papyrus is a 

Diatessaron fragment (Aland, Repertorium: "possibly", W. Petersen, Tatian: "not 

convincing"). 

In Stegmüller's view ai;tioj gi,netai is a stronger term and means "become 

guilty" against h` aivti,a which simply means "legal position". According to 

Stegmüller the reading in the Diatessaron seems to be similar to that of P25. 


TVU 255 



NA 27 Matthew 19:11 o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ouv pa,ntej cwrou/sin to.n lo,gon 

Îtou/tonÐ avllV oi-j de,dotaiÅ 

omit: B, f1, 22, 892*, pc, e, bo ms , Or, WH 

txt 01, C, D, L, W, Z, D, Q, 078, f13, 33, 700, 892 C , Maj, 

Lat, Sy, Co(+ mae-2), Cl 

892: The words has been added above the line. 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 19:22 avkou,saj de. o` neani,skoj to.n lo,gon avph/lqen 

lupou,menoj\ h=n ga.r e;cwn kth,mata polla,Å 

to.n lo,gon tou/ton B, 892 C , pc, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, mae, bo mss 

omit: 01, L, Z, 0281, (e, f, h) 

txt C, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892*, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, sa, bo 

B and 892, who omit here add the word at 19:22. The variation is strange. Very 

difficult to decide. Possibly stylistic reasons. Weiss notes additionally the 

addition of tou,tou in Mt 13:22 and 13:40 and Mt 15:15: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:22 kai. h` me,rimna tou/ aivw/noj 


Byz 01 C1 , C, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa mss , mae-1+2, bo, Or 


NA 27 Matthew 13:40 ou[twj e;stai evn th/| suntelei,a| tou/ aivw/noj\ 


Byz C, L, W, Q, 0106, 0233, 0242, f1, f13, 33, Maj, 

f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa ms , bo, 

txt 01, B, D, G, 1582, 22, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-1, Ir Lat , Cyr 

NA 27 Matthew 15:15 fra,son h`mi/n th.n parabolh.n Îtau,thnÐÅ 

BYZ Matthew 15:15 Fra,son h`mi/n th.n parabolh,n tau,thn 

txt C, D, L, W, Q, 0106, 0281, f13, 22, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, mae-1 

omit: 01, B, Z vid , f1, 579, 700, 892, sa, bo, Or, NA 25 , WH, Weiss

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 20:23 to. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou kai. evx euvwnu,mwn ouvk 

e;stin evmo.n Îtou/toÐ dou/nai( 

tou/to read: C, D, U, W, D, P, 085, 33, 346, 565, 1342, al, q, (Sy-S, Sy-C), Sy-H, 

WH mg , NA 25 , Bois, Weiss 

There appears to be a tendency of B (and 892) to go with the shorter readings. 

The question is if they are original or not. In the cases of aivw/noj (tou,tou) this 

might be idiom. 

On the other hand in 19:22 B adds the word. Compare also discussion at Mt 

19:22 below. 

Zahn (Comm. Mat.) thinks that the problem was that some took verse 11 and the 

final words in verse 12 to refer to the intermediate words. This led to the 

omission of tou/ton. 


TVU 256 


Matthew 19:16 + 19:17 

NA 27 Matthew 19:16 Kai. ivdou. ei-j proselqw.n auvtw/| ei=pen\ 

dida,skale( ti, avgaqo.n poih,sw i[na scw/ zwh.n aivw,nionÈ 

BYZ Matthew 19:16 Kai. ivdou. ei-j proselqw.n ei=pen auvtw/| 

dida,skale avgaqe,( ti, avgaqo.n poih,sw i[na e;cw zwh.n aivw,nion 

T&T #55 (verse 17) 

Byz C, K, W, D, Q, f13, 28, 33, 118, 565, 579, 700, 892 mg , 1071, 1241, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, sa, mae-1, bo pt , arm, geo 2 , 

Justin, Ir, Or pt , Chrys, Jerome, Aug, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01, B, D, L, f1, 22, 892*, pc, a, d, e, ff 1 , bo pt , mae-2?, geo 1 , aeth, Or pt 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:17 Kai. evkporeuome,nou auvtou/ eivj o`do.n prosdramw.n ei-j kai. 

gonupeth,saj auvto.n evphrw,ta auvto,n\ 

dida,skale avgaqe,( ti, poih,sw i[na zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,swÈ 

NA 27 Luke 18:18 Kai. evphrw,thse,n tij auvto.n a;rcwn le,gwn\ 

dida,skale avgaqe,( ti, poih,saj zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,swÈ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 22:36 dida,skale( poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw/| no,mw|È 

1424: dida,skale avgaqe,( poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw/| no,mw|È 

NA 27 Mark 10:35 dida,skale( qe,lomen ... 

1424: dida,skale avgaqe,( qe,lomen ... 

NA 27 Luke 10:25 dida,skale( ti, poih,saj ... 

M, 472: dida,skale avgaqe( ti, poih,saj ...

This must be discussed together with the following verse 17: 

NA 27 Matthew 19:17 o` de. ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È ei-j evstin o` avgaqo,j\ 

eiv de. qe,leij eivj th.n zwh.n eivselqei/n th,rhson ta.j evntola,jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 19:17 o` de. ei=pen auvtw/| 

ti, me le,geij avgaqonÈ ouvdei.j avgaqo,j\ eiv mh. ei-j o` Qeo,jÅ 

eiv de. qe,leij eivselqei/n eivj th.n zwh.n th,rhson ta.j evntola,j 

T&T #55 

Byz C, K, W, D, f13, 28, 33, 118, 565, 1071, 1241, 1424, Maj, 

f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, Chrys, Basil(4 th CE) 

omit le,geij: D 

txt 01, B C1 , D, L, Q, f1, 22, 700, 892, 1192*, 1424 mg , pc 5 , 

Lat, Sy-C, Sy-S, Sy-H mg , mae-1, bo, arm, geo, aeth, Or 

omit tou/ D 

omit ei-j B* 

omit o` D, f1, 22, 700, 1192*, 1424 mg , pc 5 

Lat reads txt, but adds "Deus" (e: "pater") at the end: "unus est bonus, deus." 

Only a and d omit "Deus". 1424 has the reading as alternative in the margin. 

892*: 

ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È vdei.j evstin o` avgaqo,j 

892 C : 

ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È ouvdei.j evstin o` avgaqo,j eiv mh. ei-j o` Qeo,jÅ 

f, g 1 , h, m, q, Sy-H mg , aeth, Eusebius: 

ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È ouvdei.j avgaqo,j eiv mh. ei-j o` Qeo,jÅ 

ti, me le,geij avgaqonÈ ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Justin(2 nd CE), Ir(2nd CE), Diatess Ephrem , Or(3rd CE), Epiph(3 rd CE), 

Pseudo-Cl(4th CE?) 

o[ti ei-j avgaqo,jÃ o` path.r Cl (Adaption, Strom. 5.63.8) 

B: umlaut! (line 33 C, p. 1260) ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ 

The ei-j is written above the line in uncial script, it is enhanced. Tischendorf 

notes that it was written by B 2 and enhanced by B 3 .

Byz in v. 16 and txt in v. 17: Q, 700, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Pal, bo pt , mae-1 

txt in v. 16 and Byz in v. 17: none? 

txt in v. 16 and v. 17: 01, B, D, L, f1, 22, 892*, pc, it, bo pt , geo 1 , aeth, Or pt 

The first part (verse 16) can also be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews. The 

Latin version of Origen's commentary on Matthew 15:14 has: 

"Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si 

tamen placet suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem sed ad manifestationem 

propositae quaestionis: Dixit, inquit, ad eum alter divitum: 

Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam? dixit ei: Homo, leges et prophetas fac. 

respondit ad eum: Feci. dixit ei: Vade vende omnia quae possides et divide 

pauperibus, en veni, sequere me." 

["It is written in a certain Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews (if at least any 

one care to accept it, not as authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us): 

The second of the rich men (it says) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and 

live? He said unto him: O man, fulfill (do) the law and the prophets."] 

It is not clear if this text is really from Origen, because it is present only in a 

Latin translation of the commentary, in the Greek text, which is also extant, it 

is missing. It has been suggested that this extract was found by the translator 

of Origen's commentary in some work of Jerome (thus the label Pseudo-Origen). 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:18 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ ouvdei.j avgaqo.j eiv mh. ei-j o` qeo,jÅ 

NA 27 Luke 18:19 ei=pen de. auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ 

ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ ouvdei.j avgaqo.j eiv mh. ei-j o` qeo,jÅ 

This variant comes together with that of verse 16. 

In both verses the Byz reading appears as a clear harmonization to Mk, Lk. 

"Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 

And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. 

"Good Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 

And he said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 

The txt reading asks about the "good deed", but the answer is, that "there is 

only one who is good", thus the answer is not really fitting the question. 

In the Byzantine case Jesus takes up the "Good teacher" and in this case the 

answer fits better to the question. 

The question is, has the txt reading been changed into the Byzantine reading as 

a harmonization to Mk, Lk and to make better sense?

Or has the Byzantine reading been changed to the txt reading to get rid of the 

"Why do you call me good?", which might raise the question if Jesus then is not 

good. In this case the txt reading might be a deliberate attempt of scribes to 

correct the "harder" Byzantine reading. But the attempt is not completely 

successful because it leaves the "There is only one who is good", which is not 

really fitting. Note that in both Mk and Lk the text is safe (and apparently 

caused no trouble). 

Perhaps it was already Mt who changed his Markan source to get rid of the 

problem? But he left a slightly awkward construction which was then 

subsequently changed back to the Markan parallel. 

It is interesting to note that Q, 700, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C have the Byz text in verse 

16, but the txt reading in v. 17. Possibly this variation in verse 16 only was an 

independent, partial harmonization to Mk, Lk? 

Excursus on the church fathers: 

Justin has these words two times: 

A. Apol 16:7 

Kai. proselqo,ntoj auvtw/| tinoj kai. eivpo,ntoj\ dida,skale avgaqe( 

avpekri,nato le,gwn\ 

ouvdei.j avgaqo,j\ eiv mh. mo,noj o` Qeo,j( o` poi,hsaj ta. pa,ntaÅ 

B. Dial. 101:2 

le,gontoj auvtw/| tinoj\ dida,skale avgaqe( 

avpekri,nato\ ti, me le,geij avgaqonÈ ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r mou o` 

evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

It is not clear from which Gospel Justin is quoting. Both quotes are significantly 

different, so that it is probable that Justin used two different sources. Both do 

not agree with our canonical Gospels. 

Clement: 

ouvdei.j avgaqo,j\ eiv mh. o` path,r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j (Paed I ch. 8) 

ouvdei.j avgaqo,j\ eiv mh. o` path,r h`mw/n (Paed I ch. 8) 

ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r (Strom V ch. 10) 

Several early church fathers (Jus, Ir, Ephrem, Or, Epiph, Hipp) have verse 17 in 

a curious mixture of Mk/Lk on the one hand and Mt on the other, which is not 

supported by any manuscripts: 

ti, me le,geij avgaqonÈ (Mk/Lk) 

ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( (Mt) o` path,r mou o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j

It is very difficult to decide from which Gospel the fathers are quoting or if 

they cite from memory. Nevertheless several of them agree in reading the first 

part from Mk/Lk and the rest from Mt. 

Especially interesting is that many fathers agree in the closing phrase o` path,r 

$mou% o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j, which is not present in any of the three Gospels: 

Diatessaron: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Irenaeus: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Hippolytus: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Justin: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r mou o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Pseudo-Cl: o` ga.r avgaqo,j ei-j evstin ( o` path,r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 

Clement: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r 

OLat e: ei-j evstin avgaqo,j( o` path,r (in Mt) 

Ephrem quotes it four times in his commentary (from McCarthy, p. 229, 233): 

• "Why do you call me good?" 

• "One only is good, [he said], and did not remain silent, but added, the father. 

• "One only is good." 

• "One is good, the father who is in heaven." 

An addition like this is only natural, because in the Matthean form no 

specification is given as to who is good: 

And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? 

There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 

What is interesting is that many father agree in the specific phrase o` path,r o` 

evn toi/j ouvranoi/j. W. Petersen actually thinks it is original ("What text can 

NT TC ultimately reach?" in J.Delobel "NT TC, Exegesis and Church History, 

1994, p. 136-151). He argues that the phrase has been suppressed to avoid 

adoptionist and subordinationist views (Jesus inferior to God). Since the phrase 

is not present in any manuscript, we must abstain from it and assign it to a 

possible extracanonical source (catechism?). 

Compare: 

JW Burgeon, "Traditional text", 1896, p. 259 – 278 

JW Wenham NTS 28 (1982) 116-125 




TVU 257 


NA 27 Matthew 19:17 o` de. ei=pen auvtw/|\ ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È ei-j 

evstin o` avgaqo,j\ eiv de. qe,leij eivj th.n zwh.n eivselqei/n( th,rhson ta.j 

evntola,jÅ 

th,rei B, D, 565, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Bal 

txt 01, C, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, WH mg , Trg mg , Tis 

B: no umlaut 

th,rhson imperative aorist active 2nd person singular 

th,rei imperative present active 2nd person singular 

Compare: 

NA 27 John 14:15 VEa.n avgapa/te, me( ta.j evntola.j ta.j evma.j thrh,sete\ 

Since the other verbs in the verse are in present tense th,rei would fit 

perfectly. It is possible that it has been changed to present tense to conform to 

the other verbs. Both forms occur in the NT. 

The support is not coherent. 


TVU 258 



NA 27 Matthew 19:18 le,gei auvtw/|\ poi,ajÈ o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen\ 

to. ouv foneu,seij( ouv moiceu,seij( ouv kle,yeij( ouv yeudomarturh,seij( 

e;fh P71(4 th CE), B, f13, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt ei=pen 01, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, 69, 33, 892, Maj 

For le,gei auvtw/| poi,ajÈ read: 

poi,ajÈ fhsi,n 01, L, 124, 579, WH mg 

o` de, fhsin poi,ajÈ 892 

B: no umlaut 

fhsi,n indicative present active 3rd person singular 

e;fh indicative imperfect/aorist active 3rd person singular 


NA 27 Matthew 19:21 e;fh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ 

le,gei B, Q, f13 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 8:8 kai. avpokriqei.j o` e`kato,ntarcoj e;fh\ ku,rie( 

ei=pen 01*, C, 33 

NA 27 Matthew 13:29 o` de, fhsin\ 

le,gei D, 33, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 14:8 do,j moi( fhsi,n( … 

ei=pen D 

NA 27 Matthew 17:26 e;fh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ 

le,gei 579 

NA 27 Matthew 22:37 o` de. e;fh auvtw/|\ 

ei=pen W, Q, f13, 2, 700, TR 

NA 27 Matthew 27:23 o` de. e;fh\ 

le,gei D, L, f1

fhmi, is much rarer than le,gw. At many occurrences of fhmi, there is a le,gw 

variant. 

fhmi, in the Gospels: hits per 100 verses 

Mt 1.5 

Mk 0.9 

Lk 0.6 

Jo 0.3 

Acts 2.5 

Interestingly in verse 19:21 B and f13 adopt le,gei against e;fh. 

Difficult! 


TVU 259 


NA 27 Matthew 19:20 le,gei auvtw/| o` neani,skoj\ pa,nta tau/ta evfu,laxa\ ti, 

e;ti u`sterw/È 

tau/ta pa,nta 

B, D, f1, f13, 28, 892, 1424, Maj-part[H, K, M, G], ff 1 , Sy, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg 

txt 01, C, L, W, D, Q, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1241, L2211, 

Maj-part, Lat, Robinson, WH mg 

Only 1, 1582 read tau/ta pa,nta. 22 et al. read txt. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 6:33 zhtei/te de. prw/ton th.n basilei,an Îtou/ qeou/Ð kai. th.n 

dikaiosu,nhn auvtou/( kai. tau/ta pa,nta prosteqh,setai u`mi/nÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 13:34 tau/ta pa,nta evla,lhsen o` VIhsou/j evn parabolai/j toi/j 

o;cloij kai. cwri.j parabolh/j ouvde.n evla,lei auvtoi/j( 

NA 27 Matthew 13:51 Sunh,kate tau/ta pa,ntaÈ le,gousin auvtw/|\ nai,Å 

pa,nta tau/ta M, N, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 13:56 kai. ai` avdelfai. auvtou/ ouvci. pa/sai pro.j h`ma/j eivsinÈ 

po,qen ou=n tou,tw| tau/ta pa,ntaÈ 

pa,nta tau/ta D, K, L, D, 579, Maj-part[E, F, G], Lat 

NA 27 Matthew 23:36 avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( h[xei tau/ta pa,nta evpi. th.n genea.n 

tau,thnÅ 

txt 01, C, D, L, Q, f13, 28, 565, 579, 1241, 1424, Maj-part, WH 

pa,nta tau/ta B, W, f1, 33, 700, 892, Maj-part[K, P, G, D, 0102], d 

NA 27 Matthew 24:2 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ouv ble,pete tau/ta 

pa,ntaÈ 

pa,nta tau/ta D, W, 565, Maj 

NA 27 Matthew 24:33 ou[twj kai. u`mei/j( o[tan i;dhte pa,nta tau/ta( 

ginw,skete o[ti evggu,j evstin evpi. qu,raijÅ 

tau/ta pa,nta 01, D, W, 0281, f1, f13, 28, 33, 157, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 

Maj-part[K, G], Lat, Sy-P 

txt B, L, D, P, Q, 565, 579, Maj-part, e, q, Sy-H

NA 27 Matthew 24:34 avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti ouv mh. pare,lqh| h` genea. au[th 

e[wj a'n pa,nta tau/ta ge,nhtaiÅ 

tau/ta pa,nta D, L, Q, f13, 157, 1071, L2211, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-P 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:20 o` de. e;fh auvtw/|\ dida,skale( tau/ta pa,nta evfulaxa,mhn 

evk neo,thto,j mouÅ 

pa,nta tau/ta D, Q, Lat, bo 

NA 27 Luke 18:21 o` de. ei=pen\ tau/ta pa,nta evfu,laxa evk neo,thtojÅ 

pa,nta tau/ta A, K, P, N, P, Q, al, e, Sy-H 

It is possible that this variation is at least in part due to harmonization to the 

parallels. 

At Mt 19:21 read: 

tau/ta pa,nta evfu,laxa evk neo,thtoj D (= Lk) 

tau/ta pa,nta evfulaxa,mhn evk neo,thto,j mou H, K, M, f13, 28, 892, 1424 

(=Mk) 

pa,nta tau/ta evfulaxa,mhn evk neo,thto,j mou C, W, 33, 157, 565, 1071, Maj 

The following witnesses do not have the harmonizing addition evk neo,thto,j 

(mou): 

tau/ta pa,nta B, f1 

pa,nta tau/ta 01*, L, Q, 22, 579, 700, Lat 

The support for both is good, but it is slightly better for pa,nta tau/ta. This is 

also the non-harmonizing reading, so one can accept it. 


TVU 260 

NA 27 Matthew 19:20 le,gei auvtw/| o` neani,skoj\ 

pa,nta tau/ta evfu,laxa\ ti, e;ti u`sterw/È 

BYZ Matthew 19:20 le,gei auvtw/| o` neani,skoj\ 

pa,nta tau/ta evfulaxa,mhn evk neo,thto,j mou\ ti, e;ti u`sterw/È 

Byz 01 C2 , C, D, W, X Comm. , D, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

it(a, b, c, d, e, f, ff 2 , h, n, q), vg mss , Sy, Co(+ mae-2), arm 

evfu,laxa 01 C2 , D 

D, d omit mou 

txt 01*, B, L, Q, f1, 22, 579, 700, pc, Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg) 

X txt not extant, but cited in commentary. 

B: no umlaut, but colon sign (?) 

B: p. 1261 A line 5-6: There is a prima manu correction here, but it is not clear 

what was originally there. Possibly UV light might reveal something? 

Tischendorf: "quid primum fuerit dici nequit". It is quite possible that the scribe 

originally wrote unthoughtful evfulaxa,$mhn% evk neo,thto,j mou, but noted his 

error, deleted the words and overwrote them with ti, e;ti u`sterw/. 

There is a colon sign at the left margin of line 5: pa,nta evfu,laxa\ ti, e;ti 

evk neo,thto,j mou = "since my youth." 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:20 o` de. e;fh auvtw/|\ dida,skale( 

tau/ta pa,nta evfulaxa,mhn evk neo,thto,j mouÅ 

evfu,laxa A, D, 28 

evpoi,hsa f1, 565 

NA 27 Luke 18:21 o` de. ei=pen\ tau/ta pa,nta evfu,laxa evk neo,thtojÅ 

BYZ Luke 18:21 o` de. ei=pen Tau/ta pa,nta evfu,laxamhn evk neo,thtoj mouÅ 

Clearly a harmonization to Mk or Lk. No reason for an omission. 

It is interesting to mention that Mt alone labels the man as "young" 

(neani,skoj), first in this verse 20 and again in 22. 


TVU 261 





to.n lo,gon tou/ton B, pc, it(a, b, c, ff 1 , n), vg mss , 

Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, mae-1+2, bo mss , geo 1 , 

NA 25 , WH [both with tou/ton in brackets], Weiss 

omit: 01, L, Z, 0281, 579, e, f, h, Chrys?, Tis, Bal 

txt = to.n lo,gon C, D, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, 700, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, d, e, f, ff 2 , g 1 , h, l, q, vg), Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa, bo 

to.n lo,gon o` neani,skoj 33, 1424 

Swanson has 579 correctly for the omission against NA! Checked at the film. 

892: NA has 892 C for the addition of tou/ton, but I can't see this on the film. 

The line ends with ton logo( At the position of the bar are three 

dots of unknown meaning. Harris also has nothing about this in his collation. 

There are some very faint traces of "something" in the margin, but it is 

impossible to judge from the b/w photo. If this is indeed a correction it has 

been erased. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:22 o` de. stugna,saj evpi. tw/| lo,gw| avph/lqen lupou,menoj\ h=n 

ga.r e;cwn kth,mata polla,Å 

NA 27 Luke 18:23 o` de. avkou,saj tau/ta peri,lupoj evgenh,qh\ h=n ga.r 

plou,sioj sfo,draÅ 

Compare: 



omit tou/ton: B, f1, 892*, pc, e, bo ms , Or 

txt 01, C, D, L, W, Z, Q, 078, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, Co, Cl 

The omission is strange. Very difficult to decide. Possibly stylistic reasons. 

tou/ton would be a natural addition, the complete omission could be due to 

removing an unnecessary detail.


TVU 262 


NA 27 Matthew 19:24 pa,lin de. le,gw u`mi/n( euvkopw,tero,n evstin ka,mhlon 

dia. truph,matoj ràfi,doj dielqei/n h' plou,sion eivselqei/n eivj th.n 

basilei,an tou/ qeou/Å 

ka,milon = ship's cable 174(f13), 579, 1424, pc (10 minuscules), 

L211, L524, L673, L858, L866, Cyr 

and a scholion ascribed to Or: anchor cable 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 3:4 auvto.j de. o` VIwa,nnhj ei=cen to. e;nduma auvtou/ avpo. 

tricw/n kamh,lou 

tricw/n kami,lou 28, 565 

NA 27 Matthew 23:24 o`dhgoi. tufloi,( oi` diu?li,zontej to.n kw,nwpa( th.n de. 

ka,mhlon katapi,nontejÅ 

ka,milon M, Q, P*, 579 

NA 27 Mark 1:6 kai. h=n o` VIwa,nnhj evndedume,noj tri,caj kamh,lou kai. 

zw,nhn dermati,nhn peri. th.n ovsfu.n auvtou/ kai. evsqi,wn avkri,daj kai. 

me,li a;grionÅ 

ka,milon G S , 2, 28 

NA 27 Mark 10:25 euvkopw,tero,n evstin ka,mhlon dia. Îth/jÐ trumalia/j Îth/jÐ 

ràfi,doj dielqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/nÅ 

ka,milon f13, 124, 28, 579 

NA 27 Luke 18:25 euvkopw,teron ga,r evstin ka,mhlon dia. trh,matoj belo,nhj 

eivselqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/nÅ 

ka,milon S, 124, 579, 788, 1424 

579 4 times 

28 3 times 

124, 1424 2 times 

In Hellenistic times H and I were pronounced alike. Therefore ka,mhlon and 

ka,milon sound identical. 

There is a saying in the Talmud (Bavli, Baba Metzia 38b) which speaks of "an 

elephant to go through the eye of a needle".


"Jesus, of course, means by this comparison, whether an eastern proverb or not, 

to express the impossible. The efforts to explain it away are jejune like a ship's 

cable, ka,milon or ràfi,j as a narrow gorge or gate of entrance for camels 

which recognized stooping, etc. All these are hopeless, for Jesus pointedly calls 

the thing "impossible" (verse 26). The Jews in the Babylonian Talmud did have a 

proverb that a man even in his dreams did not see an elephant pass through the 

eye of a needle (Vincent). The Koran speaks of the wicked finding the gates of 

heaven shut "till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle." But the Koran 

may have got this figure from the New Testament. The word for an ordinary 

needle is ràfi,j, but, Luke (Lk 18:25) employs belo,nhj, the medical term for 

the surgical needle not elsewhere in the N.T." 

Caragounis (Development of Greek, 2004) has a detailed discussion of the word. 

He notes: 

"The word ka,miloj is taken by LSJ to be a coinage to emend our passage. Such 

an explanation is, however, unlikely, because the word does have a definite 

meaning: to. pacu. scoini,on = "thick rope" (Souda). Kyrillos expresses himself 

thus: kamhlon de evntauqa fhsin ouv to zwon to avcqoforon( avlla. to 

pacu scoinion( evn w- desmeuousi taj avgkuraj oi` nautai. Kyrillos thus 

considers the same word as having two different meanings. It may be of 

interest to note the two meanings derived from the same stem in the Semitic 

languages: Heb. lm'G" 'jamal' = ka,mhloj; Arab. 'jummal' = cable of a ship. It is 

unlikely that Kyrillos, an inhabitant of the port city of Alexandria, would have 

expressed himself in this way unless the word did have the meaning which he 

attributes to it. [...] No doubt, Jesus' original hearers would have understood 

the reference, but apparently this proved too violent a picture for the Greek 

scribes, who substituted the more natural meaning of 'rope', 'ship's cable' in 

the form of ka,miloj. It may be, however, that the copyists were acquainted 

with a word such as ka,miloj, and it was quite natural for them to hear this 

word being read. We see the tricks that the current pronunciation played on the 

scribes of our manuscripts." 

See Th. Zahn in his commentary to the passage. 


TVU 263 






txt 01 C2 , D, L, W, X, Z, G, D, f1, f13, 2, 22, 28, 33, 579, 892, 1010, 

1071, 1241, 1424, Maj-part (Robinson and Hodges/Farstad), WH mg 

trumalia/j C, K, M, U, Q, 124(f13), 157, 565, 700, Maj-part 

trh,matoj 01*, B, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

(meaning is the same for all.) 

Parallels: 



truph,matoj belo,nhj f13, pc 

trh,matoj ràfi,doj 01* 



Byz trumalia/j ràfi,doj A, W, Y, 1071, 1424, Maj 

trumalia/j belo,nhj f1, f13, 579 

txt trh,matoj belo,nhj 01, B, D 

truph,matoj belo,nhj L, R, Q, 157, 1241, pc 

One of the few cases where all three Synoptics have a different text, at least 

in NA. The reading in Mk is basically safe. The readings in Mt/Lk are divided. In 

Mt ràfi,doj is safe. In Luke belo,nhj is very probably correct. 

If trh,matoj (01*, B) would have come from Lk one would have expected 

belo,nhj also (so Weiss). 

Streeter (FG, p. 317): "assimilation has run riot". 

Compare LXX: 

LXX Haggai 1:6 kai. o` tou.j misqou.j suna,gwn sunh,gagen eivj desmo.n 

tetruphme,non 

"and you that earn wages earn wages to put them into a bag with holes."


TVU 264 






As two variants in NA! 

eivselqei/n h' plou,sion 01, L, Z, 0281, f1, 33, 157, 892, 

Sy-S, bo ms , Or, WH, NA 25 , Gre, Tis, Bal, SBL 

(= Q, Y, 579 in Mk or Lk) 

txt B, D, Q, 124, 700, pc, Lat, sa mss , mae, Weiss, Bois 

eivselqei/n h' plou,sion eivselqei/n 579, Trg ! 

dielqei/n h' plou,sion 565, ff 1 , Sy-C 

dielqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/n 

G, S, X, Y, G, W, 1071, Maj-part (=Mk) 

eivselqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/n 

C, K, M, U, (W), D, f13, 2, 28, 1424, Maj-part (=Lk) 

Tregelles has eivselqei/n h' plou,sion Îeivselqei/nÐ. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 



eivselqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ Q 



eivselqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ Y, 579 


NA 27 Matthew 19:23 ~O de. VIhsou/j ei=pen toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/\ avmh.n le,gw 

u`mi/n o[ti plou,sioj dusko,lwj eivseleu,setai eivj th.n basilei,an tw/n 

ouvranw/nÅ

Usage: 

NA 27 Matthew 7:13 Eivse,lqate dia. th/j stenh/j pu,lhj 

NA 27 Matthew 12:43 die,rcetai diV avnu,drwn to,pwn 

The longer readings are clearly harmonizations to the parallels. 

The omission of eivselqei/n (565, pc) could be due to parablepsis eis – eis. 

If dielqei/n is present, eivselqei/n is needed to fit to eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ 

qeou/. 

The support is good for both short readings, but slightly better for the 01, L 

reading. On the one hand the txt reading could be interpreted as an 

improvement in giving more suitable verbs (dia. - dielqei/n / eivselqei/n - eivj). 

On the other hand the 01, L reading could be an abbreviation to improve style 

(so Weiss). 

It is difficult to see how one reading arose out of the other. It is possible that 

the 01, L reading is a partial harmonization to Lk. There is no explanation for a 

secondary origin of the txt reading. 

Very difficult! 


TVU 265 


NA 27 Matthew 19:29 kai. pa/j o[stij avfh/ken oivki,aj h' avdelfou.j h' avdelfa.j 

h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra h' te,kna h' avgrou.j e[neken tou/ ovno,mato,j 

mou( e`katontaplasi,ona lh,myetai kai. zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,seiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 19:29 kai. pa/j o[j avfh/ken oivki,aj h' avdelfou.j h' avdelfa.j 

h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra h' gunai/ka, h' te,kna h' avgrou.j e[neken tou/ ovno,mato,j 

mou e`katontaplasi,ona lh,yetai kai. zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,sei 

Byz 01, C, L, W, X, D, Q, f13, 22, 33, 579, 892, Maj, 

Lat (aur, c, f, g 1 , h, l, q, vg), Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co(+mae-1+2), 

Basil(4 th CE), Gre, SBL 

(in basically two different orders) 

txt B, (D), (f1), pc, it(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , n), Sy-S, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

D also omits h' pate,ra 

e also omits h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra, but reads h' gonei/j 

h' gonei/j (for h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra, no h' gunai/ka,) f1, e, Or (Legg: Ir) 

Sy-S, Sy-C omit h' pate,ra 

892: reads Byz, but has h' oivki,aj a the end of the list. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:29 

oivki,an h' avdelfou.j h' avdelfa.j h' mhte,ra h' pate,ra h' te,kna h' avgrou.j 

BYZ Mark 10:29 

oivki,an h' avdelfou.j h' avdelfa.j h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra h' gunai/ka( h' te,kna h' avgrou.j 

add h' gunai/ka: A, C, Y, f13, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H 

NA 27 Luke 18:29 oivki,an h' gunai/ka h' avdelfou.j h' gonei/j h' te,kna 

BYZ Luke 18:29 oivki,an h' gonei/j h' avdelfou.j h' gunai/ka h' te,kna 

There is no reason for an addition. Except possibly a harmonization to Mk. Most 

probably it is an accidental omission. There are many variants of order and 

omission (see Swanson). Obviously scribes felt the need to re-order the terms. 



(after weighting the witnesses) 

(put it in brackets?)

TVU 266 




h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra h' te,kna h' avgrou.j e[neken tou/ ovno,mato,j mou( 

e`katontaplasi,ona lh,myetai kai. zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,seiÅ 

tou/ evmou/ ovno,mato,j 

01, B, Q, 124, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt C, D, L, W, f1, f13, 33, 579, 892, Maj 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:29 … e[neken evmou/ kai. e[neken tou/ euvaggeli,ou( 

NA 27 Luke 18:24 … e[neken th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/( 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 21:12 … avpagome,nouj evpi. basilei/j kai. h`gemo,naj e[neken tou/ 

ovno,mato,j mou\ 

Usage: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:22 kai. e;sesqe misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn dia. to. o;noma, 

mou\ 

NA 27 Matthew 18:5 de,xhtai e]n paidi,on toiou/to evpi. tw/| ovno,mati, mou( 

NA 27 Matthew 24:5 polloi. ga.r evleu,sontai evpi. tw/| ovno,mati, mou 

NA 27 Matthew 24:9 misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn tw/n evqnw/n dia. to. o;noma, 

mouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 5:10 maka,rioi oi` dediwgme,noi e[neken dikaiosu,nhj 

NA 27 Matthew 5:11 … pa/n ponhro.n kaqV u`mw/n Îyeudo,menoiÐ e[neken evmou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 10:18 evpi. h`gemo,naj de. kai. basilei/j avcqh,sesqe e[neken 

evmou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 10:39 o` avpole,saj th.n yuch.n auvtou/ e[neken evmou/ 

Matthew has always the personal pronoun mou after o;noma. There is no reason 

to change the normal txt into the 01, B reading, which is unusual. 


TVU 267 



h' pate,ra h' mhte,ra h' te,kna h' avgrou.j e[neken tou/ ovno,mato,j mou( 

e`katontaplasi,ona lh,myetai kai. zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,seiÅ 

pollaplasi,ona B, L, 579, pc, sa, mae-1, Or, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

txt 01, C, D, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy, bo, mae-2, Basil(4 th CE) 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:30 eva.n mh. la,bh| e`katontaplasi,ona nu/n evn tw/| kairw/| 

tou,tw| 

NA 27 Luke 18:30 o]j ouvci. mh. ÎavpoÐla,bh| pollaplasi,ona evn tw/| kairw/| 

tou,tw| kai. evn tw/| aivw/ni tw/| evrcome,nw| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ 

e`ptaplasi,ona D, it, sa ms 

e`katontaplasi,ona 1241, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C 

One or the other is either a harmonization to Mk or to Lk. It is improbable that 

both Mt and Lk independently changed the Markan e`katontaplasi,ona to 

pollaplasi,ona. This would create a Minor Agreement. Therefore it is more 

probable that the B et al. reading is a harmonization to Lk. 

Note that this is one of the few cases where the textcritical decision in NA 

depends on a certain source theory (here Markan priority). 


TVU 268 


NA 27 Matthew 20:4 kai. evkei,noij ei=pen\ u`pa,gete kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n 

avmpelw/na( kai. o] eva.n h=| di,kaion dw,sw u`mi/nÅ 

avmpelw/na mou 01, C, Y, Q, P, f13, 33, 565, 579, 700, 713, al, 

it(a, aur, c, e, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , h, n, r 1 ), vg mss , sa, mae-1+2 

txt B, D, L, W, X, D, 085, f1, 892, Maj, Lat(b, d, l, q, vg), Sy, bo 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 20:1 ... misqw,sasqai evrga,taj eivj to.n avmpelw/na auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Matthew 20:2 ... avpe,steilen auvtou.j eivj to.n avmpelw/na auvtou/Å 

Note: omit auvtou/ f1 ! 

NA 27 Matthew 20:7 ... u`pa,gete kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n avmpelw/naÅ 

add mou C C , D, N, Z, 085, 565, 1241, pc, it, Sy-S 

Clearly a conformation to context. 


TVU 269 

NA 27 Matthew 20:6 peri. de. th.n e`ndeka,thn evxelqw.n eu-ren a;llouj 

e`stw/taj kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, w-de e`sth,kate o[lhn th.n h`me,ran avrgoi,È 

BYZ Matthew 20:6 peri. de. th.n e`ndeka,thn w[ran evxelqw.n eu-ren a;llouj 

e`stw/taj avrgou,j( kai. le,gei auvtoi/j Ti, w-de e`sth,kate o[lhn th.n h`me,ran 

avrgoi, 

Byz C, W, X, D, f1, f13, 579, Maj, f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, 085, 33, 565, 700, 892, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2), Or 

B: no umlaut 

avrgo,j "unemployed" 


NA 27 Matthew 20:3 kai. evxelqw.n peri. tri,thn w[ran ei=den a;llouj 

e`stw/taj evn th/| avgora/| avrgou,j 

There is nor reason for an omission. Probably from context 20:3. 


TVU 270 

NA 27 Matthew 20:7 le,gousin auvtw/|\ o[ti ouvdei.j h`ma/j evmisqw,satoÅ le,gei 

auvtoi/j\ u`pa,gete kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n avmpelw/naÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:7 le,gousin auvtw/| {Oti ouvdei.j h`ma/j evmisqw,sato le,gei 

auvtoi/j\ u`pa,gete kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n avmpelw/na kai. o` eva,n h[ di,kaio,n 

lh,yesqeÅ 

Byz C*, W, X, D, f13, 22, 33, 700, 892 C , Maj, f, h, q, 

Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal ms 

add avmpelw/na mou kai. ... C C3 , N, 174, 346, 828(=f13-part), 565, 1241, pc 

txt 01, B, (D), L, (Z), Q, (085), f1, 892*, Lat, (Sy-S), Co 

avmpelw/na mou D, Z, 085, it, vg mss , Sy-S, sa, mae-2 (+ evrga,zesqe) 

NA has txt + mou for C C3 , but it reads Byz + mou as Swanson has it. K. Witte 

from Muenster confirmed this. 

892: There is an insertion sign (triplet) in the text and the words are added in 

the margin by a later hand. 

B: no umlaut 

h[ of eivmi, subjunctive present active 3rd person singular 

"...and whatever may be righteous you shall receive." 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 20:4 kai. evkei,noij ei=pen\ u`pa,gete kai. u`mei/j eivj to.n 

avmpelw/na( kai. o] eva.n h=| di,kaion dw,sw u`mi/nÅ 

add avmpelw/na mou kai. ... 01, C, Q, f13, 33, 565, 700, pc, it 

Probably a harmonization to verse 4. There is no reason for an omission. 




TVU 271 



NA 27 Matthew 20:8 ovyi,aj de. genome,nhj le,gei o` ku,rioj tou/ avmpelw/noj 

tw/| evpitro,pw| auvtou/\ ka,leson tou.j evrga,taj kai. avpo,doj auvtoi/j 

to.n misqo.n avrxa,menoj avpo. tw/n evsca,twn e[wj tw/n prw,twnÅ 

omit 01, C, L, Z, 085, Or, WH, NA 25 

txt B, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 33 vid , 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, WH mg , Weiss, [Trg] 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

The support for the omission is very good. Difficult to judge. 


TVU 272 



NA 27 Matthew 20:9 kai. evlqo,ntej oi` peri. th.n e`ndeka,thn w[ran e;labon 

avna. dhna,rionÅ 

evlqo,ntej de, B, Sy-C?, sa mss , bo ms , WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt kai. evlqo,ntej 01, C, L, W, Z, 085, f1, 892, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-H, bo, Tis, Bal 

evlqo,ntej ou=n D, Q, f13, 33, Lat, Sy-C?, sa ms , mae, Gre (!) 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 20:10 kai. evlqo,ntej oi` prw/toi evno,misan o[ti plei/on 

lh,myontai\ kai. e;labon Îto.Ð avna. dhna,rion kai. auvtoi,Å 

BYZ Matthew 20:10 evlqo,ntej de. … 

Byz 01, L, W, Z, f1, 892, Maj, q, Sy-H, bo, Tis, Bal 

txt B, C, D, Q, 085, f13, 33 vid , pc, e, Sy-S, Sy-C, mae, Weiss 

evlqo,ntej de, kai. N, pc, Lat 

kai. … kai. C, 085 = txt 

de, … kai. B 

ou=n … kai. D, Q, f13, 33 

kai. … de, 01, L, W, Z, f1, 892, Maj = Byz 

de, … de, - 

1241 has a singular expansion in verse 10: VElqo,ntej de. oi` peri. th.n prw,thn 

kai. tri,thn kai. e[kthn kai. evna,thn w[ran evno,misan … 

(from previous context) 

Verse 9 and 10 have to be considered together. 

The evidence for the versions is not clear. E.g. for Sy-C Burkitt has "Now when 

there came those …". This would even better fit ou=n. 

The ou=n reading is just too "self-suggesting" to be original. There would have 

been no reason to change it. 

The change is only very minor and it seems rather improbable that B alone would 

have it right here. 

Strange. Difficult variation.


TVU 273 



NA 27 Matthew 20:12 le,gontej\ ou-toi oi` e;scatoi mi,an w[ran evpoi,hsan( 

kai. i;souj h`mi/n auvtou.j evpoi,hsaj toi/j basta,sasi to. ba,roj th/j 

h`me,raj kai. to.n kau,swnaÅ 

i;souj auvtou.j h`mi/n 

01, D, L, Z, 085, f13, 157, 892, pc, Lat, WH, NA 25 , Gre, Trg mg , SBL 

txt B, C, W, Q, f1, 33, Maj, c, WH mg , Weiss 

i;souj h`mi/n evpoi,hsaj auvtou.j 579 

B: no umlaut 

The txt reading appears to be the more smooth reading, having those words 

next to each other that belong together: "equal to us – them you have made". 

Normally i;soj is directly followed by the dative. This is taken even further by 

the 579 reading. 

On the other hand it could be argued that the txt reading has been changed into 

the 01, D reading to bring h`mi/n closer to the following clause. 

Difficult! 


TVU 274 



NA 27 Matthew 20:15 Îh'Ð ouvk e;xesti,n moi o] qe,lw poih/sai evn toi/j evmoi/jÈ 

h' o` ovfqalmo,j sou ponhro,j evstin o[ti evgw. avgaqo,j eivmiÈ 

omit B, D, L, Z, Q, 700, Sy-S, Sy-C, arm, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg, SBL 

txt 01, C, W, 085, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co 

For the second h': 

eiv B C2 , H, S, G, f13, 22, 118, 28, 157, 700, 1071, al 

txt 01, B*, C, D, L, W, Z, Q, 565, 579, 892, 1424, Maj, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, SBL 

B: In B the h is left unenhanced and a small ei is written above it, which is 

enhanced. 

B: umlaut! 1262 A 2 evn toi/j evmoi/jÈ h' o` ovfqalmo,j sou 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:29 eiv de. o` ovfqalmo,j sou o` dexio.j skandali,zei se( 

NA 27 Matthew 6:23 eva.n de. o` ovfqalmo,j sou ponhro.j h=|( 

NA 27 Matthew 18:9 kai. eiv o` ovfqalmo,j sou skandali,zei se 


NA 27 Matthew 20:14 pageÅ qe,lw de. tou,tw| tw/| evsca,tw| dou/nai w`j kai. soi,\ 

The eiv reading is probably an accidental error inspired from 18:9. 

The first h' could have been added to conform the sentence to the next. On the 

other hand it could have been omitted, because of the following h'. 

It is also possible that h' has been omitted accidentally after soi, because in 

later Greek h and oi were pronounced alike (so also Metzger). 


TVU 275 

NA 27 Matthew 20:16 ou[twj e;sontai oi` e;scatoi prw/toi kai. oi` prw/toi 

e;scatoiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:16 Ou[twj e;sontai oi` e;scatoi prw/toi kai. oi` prw/toi 

e;scatoiÅ polloi. ga.r eivsin klhtoi,( ovli,goi de. evklektoi,Å 

T&T #56 

Byz C, D, W, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892 C , Maj, Latt, Sy, mae-1, bo pt , [Trg] 

txt 01, B, L, Z, 085, 892*, 1342, 1424, 1675*, pc 14 , sa, bo pt , mae-2 

pc = 4, 5, 36, 75*, 141, 278, 423*, 571, 797, 1093, 1243*, 1403, 1574, 2418* 

892: There is an insertion sign (triplet) in the text and the words have been 

added in the margin by a later hand. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Matthew 22:14 polloi. ga,r eivsin klhtoi,( ovli,goi de. evklektoi,Å 


NA 27 Matthew 19:30 polloi. de. e;sontai prw/toi e;scatoi kai. e;scatoi prw/toiÅ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Mark 10:31 polloi. de. e;sontai prw/toi e;scatoi kai. Îoi`Ð e;scatoi prw/toiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 13:30 kai. ivdou. eivsi.n e;scatoi oi] e;sontai prw/toi kai. eivsi.n 

prw/toi oi] e;sontai e;scatoiÅ 

BYZ Luke 14:24 le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti ouvdei.j tw/n avndrw/n evkei,nwn tw/n 

keklhme,nwn geu,setai, mou tou/ dei,pnou Îpolloi, ga.r eivsin klhtoi, 

ovli,goi de, evklektoi,Ð 

This is probably an addition from 22:14 (so Weiss), which resembles very much 

the close of this parable. Internally it makes not much sense here. Weiss: 

"inappropriate". 

This catchy saying has also been added after Lk 14:24. Nevertheless it might be 

an omission due to h.t. TOI - TOI. Note the corrected Byzantine minuscules! 

This verse is the end of a lection. Possibly this caused the addition? 

Compare: 

F. Giesekke TSK 71 (1898) 344-48 [he argues that this saying is out of place (at 

both positions: 20:16 and 22:14) and that the true location must have been 

originally after 19:30.]




TVU 276 



NA 27 Matthew 20:17 Kai. avnabai,nwn o` VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma pare,laben 

tou.j dw,deka Îmaqhta.jÐ katV ivdi,an kai. evn th/| o`dw/| ei=pen auvtoi/j\ 

Me,llwn de. avnabai,nein VIhsou/j B, sa mss , bo mss , 

WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg mg , Bal 

Me,llwn de. o` VIhsou/j avnabai,nein f1, Sy-P, Or 

WH mg = txt 

Et cum ascenderet… e, ff 1 

B: no umlaut 

"Jesus, being about to go up to Jerusalem..." 


NA 27 Matthew 20:18 ivdou. avnabai,nomen eivj ~Ieroso,luma( 

"See, we are going up to Jerusalem, ... 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:32 +Hsan de. evn th/| o`dw/| avnabai,nontej eivj ~Ieroso,luma( kai. 

h=n proa,gwn auvtou.j o` VIhsou/j( kai. evqambou/nto( oi` de. avkolouqou/ntej 

evfobou/ntoÅ kai. paralabw.n pa,lin tou.j dw,deka h;rxato auvtoi/j le,gein 

ta. me,llonta auvtw/| sumbai,nein 

NA 27 Luke 18:31 Paralabw.n de. tou.j dw,deka ei=pen pro.j auvtou,j\ ivdou. 

avnabai,nomen eivj VIerousalh,m( kai. telesqh,setai pa,nta ta. gegramme,na 

dia. tw/n profhtw/n tw/| ui`w/| tou/ avnqrw,pou\ 

NA 27 Luke 19:28 Kai. eivpw.n tau/ta evporeu,eto e;mprosqen avnabai,nwn eivj 

~Ieroso,lumaÅ 

This change is interesting, because there is no parallel for it. 

Metzger: "the word @Me,llwn de.# appears to be a topographical correction 

introduced by copyists who observed that from Jericho (vs. 29) one 'goes up to 

Jerusalem'; before reaching Jericho, therefore, Jesus is 'about to go up to 

Jerusalem'." 

The support is quite good. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 93), says that from verse 18 one could assume that Jesus 

is already walking, so the Me,llwn is inappropriate and the phrase has been 

changed.

Hoskier (Codex B, I, p. 47) thinks that the words are "a clear reflection of Mk 

10:32." but this seems rather improbable, except that Mt already wrote these 

words and they are original. 

me,llw is certainly Matthean style. Cf. Mt 2:13; 16:27; 17:12, 22; 20:22; 24:6. 


TVU 277 



NA 27 Matthew 20:17 Kai. avnabai,nwn o` VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma 

pare,laben tou.j dw,deka Îmaqhta.jÐ katV ivdi,an kai. evn th/| o`dw/| ei=pen 

auvtoi/j\ 

omit: 01, D, L, Q, f1, f13, 892*, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo, Or, 

NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

txt = add maqhta.j B, C, W, X, D, 085, 22, 28*, 33, 700, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-H, sa-mss, mae-1, [WH], Gre, Bois 

maqhta.j auvtou/ 13, 346, 28 C , 713, 892 C , 1342, 1424, pc, 

it, vg-mss, Sy-P, sa-mss 

auvtou/ mae-2 

892: There is an insertion sign in the text (triplet) and the words have been 

added in the margin by a later hand. 

B: no umlaut 


VOyi,aj de. genome,nhj avne,keito meta. tw/n dw,deka Þ Å 21 kai. evsqio,ntwn 

add maqhtw/n 01, A, L, W, Q, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, 

Maj-part[M, D, P ], L844, Lat, Sy-H, sa-mss, mae-1, bo, 

[NA 25 ], [WH], Tis, Gre, Bois 

txt = omit P37 vid (300 CE), P45 vid (3 rd CE), B, D, f1, f13, 28, 565, 579, 

700, Maj-part[K, U, G, W], L2211, (Sy-S), sa-mss, 

Eus, Weiss, Trg, Bal 

add maqhtw/n auvtou/ 074(=064), 0281, pc, it, vg Cl , Sy-P 

meta. tw/n maqhtw/n mae-2

P37: After ibñ the papyrus breaks off. Compare reconstruction in K.S. Min ANTF 

34 (Mt papyri) p. 83 + 109, which makes it very probable that P37 reads txt. 

o]yias de genomenhs anekeito meta twn ibñ [kai esqion 

t]wn autwn eipen amhn legw umin eis ex u[mwn pa 

r]adwsei me kai lupomenoi sfodra hrxanto [ legein eka 

P45: Here again, curiously the papyrus breaks off directly after dw,deka. 

Compare reconstruction in K.S. Min ANTF 34 (Mt papyri) p. 117. 

[oyias de ge] 

n]omenhs anekeito m[eta twn dw]deka[kai esqiontwn eipen amhn 

l]egw umin eis ex um[wn para]dwsei me kai lu[pomenoisfodrahr 

r]adwsei me kai lupomenoi sfodra hrxanto [ legein eka 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels 20:17: 

NA 27 Mark 10:32 kai. paralabw.n pa,lin tou.j dw,deka 

add maqhta.j auvtou/ 124, pc 

NA 27 Luke 18:31 Paralabw.n de. tou.j dw,deka 

add maqhta.j E* 

Parallels 26:20 

NA 27 Mark 14:17 Kai. ovyi,aj genome,nhj e;rcetai meta. tw/n dw,dekaÅ 

safe! 

NA 27 Luke 22:14 

Kai. o[te evge,neto h` w[ra( avne,pesen kai. oi` avpo,stoloi su.n auvtw/|Å 

dw,deka avpo,stoloi 01 C2 , A, C, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

Lat(aur, f, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, arm, Marcion E 

oi` dw,deka 01 C1 , L, X, 1071, 1241, pc 5 , sa mss 

oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ Sy-S 

txt P75, 01*, B, D, 157, pc, it, Sy-C, sa

Context for 26:20: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:18 ... o` kairo,j mou evggu,j evstin( pro.j se. poiw/ to. pa,sca 

meta. tw/n maqhtw/n mouÅ 19 kai. evpoi,hsan oi` maqhtai. w`j sune,taxen 

auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j kai. h`toi,masan to. pa,scaÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:1 Kai. proskalesa,menoj tou.j dw,deka maqhta.j auvtou/ 

safe! 

NA 27 Matthew 11:1 Kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j diata,sswn toi/j 

dw,deka maqhtai/j auvtou/( 

omit dw,deka: f1, 22, pc, mae-2 

NA 27 Mark 6:7 Kai. proskalei/tai tou.j dw,deka 

add maqhta.j D, 892 mg , 1071, pc, it 

NA 27 Mark 11:11 evxh/lqen eivj Bhqani,an meta. tw/n dw,dekaÅ 

add maqhtw/n D, pc, it 

NA 27 Luke 9:1 Sugkalesa,menoj de. tou.j dw,deka 

add maqhta.j auvtou/ C C , E, F, H, U, 2, 157, al, it(b, ff 2 , l, q, r 1 ), Eus 

NA 27 John 6:67 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j toi/j dw,deka\ 

add maqhtai/j U, Q, f13, pc, it, arm 

Very difficult due to very evenly divided support. If one analyses the external 

evidence, in 20:17 the support is even slightly better for the omission and in 

26:20 it is slightly better for the addition. 

On the one hand oi` dw,deka was a clear title for the twelve disciples and it is 

possible that maqhta.j has been omitted as redundant. Metzger in his 

commentary thinks that the omission is due to a harmonization to the parallels 

(Mk 10:32, Lk 18:31). 

On the other hand the addition of maqhta.j is only natural, as can be seen above. 

The addition might be a conformation to Mt 10:1 and 11:1. Weiss argues this way. 

Especially in 26:20 the addition of maqhtw/n is suggested from immediate 

context, verses 18 and 19. 

WH have "disciples" in both verses in brackets in the text. This seems 

reasonable.

Rating: 1? or – (NA probably wrong or indecisive) 

either both times in brackets in text or both times in apparatus.

TVU 278 


NA 27 Matthew 20:19 kai. paradw,sousin auvto.n toi/j e;qnesin eivj to. 

evmpai/xai kai. mastigw/sai kai. staurw/sai( kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| 

evgerqh,setaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:19 kai. paradw,sousin auvto.n toi/j e;qnesin eivj to. 

evmpai/xai kai. mastigw/sai kai. staurw/sai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| 

avnasth,setaiÅ 

Byz B, C C , D, W, X, D, Q, 085, f1, f13, 22, 700, Maj, WH mg , Weiss 

txt 01, C*, L, N, Z, 579, 892, pc, Or, WH, NA 25 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 16:21 kai. avpoktanqh/nai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| evgerqh/naiÅ 

D, 157, it: avnasth/nai 

NA 27 Luke 9:22 kai. avpoktanqh/nai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| evgerqh/naiÅ 

A, C, D, K, f1, 565, Maj-part: avnasth/nai 


kai. avpoktenou/sin auvto,n( kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| evgerqh,setaiÅ 

B, 047, f13, 892, 1424, pc: avnasth,setai 

NA 27 Matthew 12:41 a;ndrej Nineui/tai avnasth,sontai evn th/| kri,sei meta. 

th/j genea/j tau,thj 

NA 27 Mark 8:31 kai. avpoktanqh/nai kai. meta. trei/j h`me,raj avnasth/nai\ 

NA 27 Mark 9:31 kai. avpoktenou/sin auvto,n( kai. avpoktanqei.j meta. trei/j 

h`me,raj avnasth,setaiÅ 

NA 27 Mark 10:34 kai. avpoktenou/sin( kai. meta. trei/j h`me,raj avnasth,setaiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 18:33 kai. mastigw,santej avpoktenou/sin auvto,n( kai. th/| h`me,ra| 

th/| tri,th| avnasth,setaiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 24:7 kai. staurwqh/nai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| avnasth 

NA 27 John 6:40 kai. avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. ÎevnÐ th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å 

NA 27 John 11:24 le,gei auvtw/| h` Ma,rqa\ oi=da o[ti avnasth,setai evn th/| 

avnasta,sei evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å 

It is interesting to note that in the minority readings of the above parallels the 

change is always from evgei,rw to avni,sthmi.

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 46) thinks that the evgerqh,setai is a conformation to Mt 

16:21. He thinks that if the avnasth,setai was a conformation to Mk, then also 

the th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| would have been changed into meta. trei/j h`me,raj (as in 

D 16:21). That Mt uses avni,sthmi this way can be seen from Mt 12:41. 


TVU 279 


NA 27 Matthew 20:21 o` de. ei=pen auvth/|\ ti, qe,leijÈ le,gei auvtw/|\ eivpe. i[na 

kaqi,swsin ou-toi oi` du,o uiòi, mou ei-j evk dexiw/n sou kai. ei-j evx 

euvwnu,mwn sou evn th/| basilei,a| souÅ 

omit first sou: 01, B, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, Bal 

Tis has it. 

omit second sou: D, E, Q, f1, 22, 33, 565, pc, Lat, mae-1, arm 

omit: aur, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , r 1 , vg mss 

have it: a, f, g 1 , h, l, n, q, vg mss 

- mae-2 has a lacuna, but Schenke reconstructs without second sou. 

- Acc. to Harris and Anderson 22 has sou, acc. to Legg it omits. 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:37 oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\ do.j h`mi/n i[na ei-j sou evk dexiw/n kai. 

ei-j evx avristerw/n kaqi,swmen evn th/| do,xh| souÅ 

BYZ Mark 10:37 oi` de. ei=pon auvtw/| Do.j h`mi/n i[na ei-j evk dexiw/n sou kai. 

ei-j evx euvwnu,mw/n sou kaqi,swmen evn th/| do,xh| sou 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 3:33 kai. avpokriqei.j auvtoi/j le,gei\ 

ti,j evstin h` mh,thr mou kai. oi` avdelfoi, ÎmouÐÈ 

omit first mou W 

omit second mou B, D, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

Possibly omitted to improve style? 

It is also possible that the words have been added to make the sentence more 

symmetrical. 

Note the similar omission of mou in Mk. 


TVU 280 

NA 27 Matthew 20:22-23 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen\ ouvk oi;date ti, 

aivtei/sqeÅ du,nasqe piei/n to. poth,rion o] evgw. me,llw pi,neinÈ le,gousin 

auvtw/|\ duna,meqaÅ 

23 le,gei auvtoi/j\ to. me.n poth,rio,n mou pi,esqe( to. de. kaqi,sai evk 

dexiw/n mou kai. evx euvwnu,mwn ouvk e;stin evmo.n Îtou/toÐ dou/nai( avllV oi-j 

h`toi,mastai u`po. tou/ patro,j mouÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:22-23 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen Ouvk oi;date ti, 

aivtei/sqe du,nasqe piei/n to. poth,rion o] evgw. me,llw pi,nein h] to. 

ba,ptisma o` evgw. bapti,zomai baptisqh/naiÈ le,gousin auvtw/| Duna,meqa 

23 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j To. me.n poth,rio,n mou pi,esqe kai. to. ba,ptisma o] 

evgw. bapti,zomai baptisqh,sesqe\ To. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou kai. evx 

euvwnu,mwn mou ouvk e;stin evmo.n dou/nai avll oi-j h`toi,mastai u`po. tou/ 

patro,j mou 

Byz C, W, X, D, S, F, f13, 33, 579, 700, 892, Maj, f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt 

txt 01, B, D, L, Z, Q, 085, f1, 788(f13), 22, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, mae-1+2, bo pt 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:38-39 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ouvk oi;date ti, aivtei/sqeÅ 

du,nasqe piei/n to. poth,rion o] evgw. pi,nw h' to. ba,ptisma o] evgw. 

bapti,zomai baptisqh/naiÈ 

39 oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\ duna,meqaÅ o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ to. 

poth,rion o] evgw. pi,nw pi,esqe kai. to. ba,ptisma o] evgw. bapti,zomai 

baptisqh,sesqe( 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 12:50 ba,ptisma de. e;cw baptisqh/nai( kai. pw/j sune,comai e[wj 

o[tou telesqh/|Å 

Very probably copied from Mark (so Weiss). The support is not very good. 


TVU 281 




e;stin evmo.n Îtou/toÐ dou/nai( avllV oi-j h`toi,mastai u`po. tou/ patro,j mouÅ 

No txt in NA! 

h' B, L, Q, 1, 1582 mg , 33, 1424, pc, Or, Weiss, WH mg , Trg mg 

txt 01, C, D, W, X, Z, D, 085 ? , 1582*, f13, 22, 579, 700, 892, Maj 

085: from silence, NA and Gregory III, p. 1062. 

1582: The addition in the margin has been written by the original scribe Ephraim (10 th CE). 

Anderson thinks that it is more likely that Ephraim copied those marginalia from his exemplar, 

than that they are his own comments. Ephraim is known from his other work to have copied 

faithfully his material. The text of 1582, as well as 1739 is closely related to Origen/Caesarea. 

The archetype has been assigned to the late 5 th CE. 

B: no umlaut 

Immediate context: 




Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:40 to. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou h' evx euvwnu,mwn 

BYZ Mark 10:40 to. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou kai. evx euvwnu,mwn 

Not in NA at all! 

Byz A, C, Q, f1, f13, 28, 565, 579, 700, 1071, Maj 

txt 01, B, D, L, W, D, Y, 892, 1342, 1424, pc (Lacuna: 33) 

Tischendorf and NA think that h' is a harmonization to Mk. 

On the other hand the support is very good and a harmonization to Mk is 

normally rather improbable. 

The reading h' in Mk is overwhelmingly supported and so practically safe. kai. 

then, must be a harmonization to Mt. 

It is possible that kai. in Mt is a conformation to immediate context, verse 21 

(so Weiss). To this, then, subsequently, the Byzantine text in Mk is harmonized. 

But all this is far from certain. Very difficult!


TVU 282 



e;stin evmo.n Îtou/toÐ dou/nai( avllV oi-j h`toi,mastai u`po. tou/ patro,j mouÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:23 To. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou kai. evx euvwnu,mwn mou 

ouvk e;stin evmo.n dou/nai avll oi-j h`toi,mastai u`po. tou/ patro,j mou 

Byz 01, B, K, L, X, Z, Q, f1, f13, 22, 700, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), 

WH, Trg, Bal, SBL 

txt C, D, U, W, D, P, 085, 33, 346, 565, 1342, al, q, (Sy-S, Sy-C), Sy-H, 

WH mg , NA 25 , Bois, Weiss, Tis 

tou/to ouvk e;stin evmo.n dou/nai U, 565, pc, (Sy-S, Sy-C) 

ouvk e;stin evmo.n dou/nai tou/to P 

to dou/nai Y (acc. to Gregory, Textkritik III, p. 1029) 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:40 to. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou h' evx euvwnu,mwn ouvk 

e;stin evmo.n dou/nai( avllV oi-j h`toi,mastaiÅ 

Compare: 



omit tou/ton: B, f1, 892*, pc, e, bo ms , Or 



to.n lo,gon tou/ton B, 892 C , pc, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, mae, bo mss 

It is possible that the omission is a harmonization to Mk. Different insertion 

points are an indication of a secondary cause. The support for the omission is 

bad. 

Compare discussion at 19:11 and 22. 


External Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong) 


TVU 283 


NA 27 Matthew 20:26 ouvc ou[twj e;stai evn u`mi/n( avllV o]j eva.n qe,lh| evn u`mi/n 

me,gaj gene,sqai e;stai u`mw/n dia,konoj( 

evsti,n B, D, Z, 0281, pc, sa mss , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg 

txt e;stai 01, C, L, W, Q, 085, f1, f13, 892, Maj, Lat, sa mss , mae, bo 

de. e;stai C, M, G, 28, 33, 892, 1424, al (:: Mk) 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 20:27 kai. o]j a'n qe,lh| evn u`mi/n ei=nai prw/toj e;stai u`mw/n 

dou/loj\ 

BYZ Matthew 20:27 kai. o]j eva.n qe,lh| evn u`mi/n ei=nai prw/toj e;stw u`mw/n 

dou/loj\ 

e;stw B, 28, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj-part 

e;stai P45, 01, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, Maj-part, WH 

e;stw imperative present 3rd person singular 

e;stai indicative future middle 3rd person singular 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 10:43 ouvc ou[twj de, evstin evn u`mi/n( avllV o]j a'n qe,lh| me,gaj 

gene,sqai evn u`mi/n e;stai u`mw/n dia,konoj( 

BYZ Mark 10:43 ouvc ou[twj de, e;stai evn u`mi/n avll o]j eva.n qe,lh| gene,sqai 

me,gaj evn u`mi/n evstai u`mw/n dia,konoj 

evstin 01, B, C*, D, L, W, D, Q, Y, 700, pc 

e;stai A, C C3 , f1, f13, 28, 157, 565, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj 

NA 27 Luke 9:48 

o` ga.r mikro,teroj evn pa/sin u`mi/n u`pa,rcwn ou-to,j evstin me,gajÅ 

BYZ Luke 9:48 

o` ga.r mikro,teroj evn pa/sin u`mi/n u`pa,rcwn ou-to,j evstai me,gaj 

evstin P45, P75, 01, B, C, L, X, f1, 33, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, pc 

e;stai A, D, W, Q, Y, f13, 157, Maj 

In all three parallels the Byzantine text has e;stai. But it is only B that has in all 

three cases evstin. e;stai is probably the grammatically more correct, 

stylistically better reading. evstin could mean that it already IS so, but probably

there is no intended difference in meaning. One can assume that e;stai is meant 

to have imperatival force ("it should be"). 

The support for evstin is overwhelming in both Mk and Lk. In these cases on 

could argue that e;stai is a harmonization to Mt or an improvement. But what, 

then, is the explanation for evstin in Mt? 

Changes from e;stai to evstin: 

Matthew 5:22 M 


Matthew 12:11 D, Q, 33, 157, 565, 1424 

Matthew 13:40 1424 

Matthew 16:22 e;stw for e;stai f13, 1071 

Matthew 5:37 e;stai for e;stw B, 2, 700, pc 

A change from evstin to e;stai is not recorded. 

Therefore one must conclude as the least unsatisfactory explanation, that the 

evstin reading in Mt is either a harmonization to Mk or Lk, or an accidental or 

stylistic variation similar to those cases noted above. 

Weiss, though argues (Comm. Mt) that the e;stai is a conformation to the two 

following e;stai. 


TVU 284 


NA 27 Matthew 20:28 w[sper o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou ouvk h=lqen 

diakonhqh/nai avlla. diakonh/sai kai. dou/nai th.n yuch.n auvtou/ lu,tron 

avnti. pollw/n Þ Å 

Þ : D, d, F, it(a, aur, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , (g 1 ), g 2 , h, (m), n, r 1 , r 2 ), vg mss , 

Sy-C (adds mh.), Sy-H mg , Sy-P ms 

4 Anglo-Saxon Codices, Juvencus (330 CE), Hilary (354 CE), Bois 

g 1 and m read only the first sentence a. 

Of the Old Latins f, g 1 , l, q do not have the addition. 

In Codex Bezae there is a vertical bar in the left margin along this passage. At 

the end there are erased, illegible words in the margin, but this is a lectionary 

note only according to Scrivener (Bezae Codex p. 448, fol. 67b). 

Scrivener (p. XLIX) cites a marginal note in a Philoxenian Syriac: "that the 

paragraph is found in Greek copies at this place, but in ancient copies only in Lk 

kef. 53". 

Sy-S has a lacuna, but Burkitt notes that the extra passage was probably not 

included, because the space on the missing page is too small. 

B: no umlaut 

D reads: 

a. u`mei/j de. zhtei/te evk mikrou/ auvxh,sai kai. (mh.) evk mei,zonoj e;latton 

ei=nai 

b. eivserco,menoi de. kai. paraklhqe,ntej deipnh/sai mh. avnaklei,nesqai 

eivj tou.j evxe,contaj to,pouj mh,pote evndoxo,teroj sou evpe,lqh| kai. 

proselqw.n o` deipnoklh,twr ei;ph| soi e;ti ka,tw cw,rei kai. 

kataiscunqh,sh| 

c. eva.n de. avnape.shj eivj to.n h[ttona to,pon kai. evpe,lqh| sou h[ttwn evrei/ 

soi o` deipnoklh,twr su,nage e;ti a;nw kai. e;stai soi tou/to crh,simon 

The Latin reads (from Jülicher): 

a. Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere et de maiore minores esse. 

b. Intrantes autem et rogati ad cenam nolite recumbere in locis eminentioribus, 

ne forte clarior te superveniat et accedens, qui ad cenam vocavit te, dicat 

tibi: adhuc deorsum accede, et confundaris. 

c. Si autem in loco inferiori recubueris et supervenerit humilior te, dicat tibi qui 

ad cenam vocavit te: Accede adhuc sursum/superius, et erit hoc tibi utilius. 

(At the end e reads: tunc erit tibi: gloriam coram discumbentibus.)

Variants: 

a. Sy-C adds mh. after kai.. 

b. Sy-C omits eivserco,menoi de. kai. 

for avnaklei,nesqai eivj tou.j evxe,contaj to,pouj F reads: 

eivj tou.j evxe,contaj to,pouj avnakli,nesqe 

Sy-S reads the singular: avnakli,nesqe eivj to.n evxe,conta to,pon 

Sy-S omits proselqw.n 

Sy-S, e omit e;ti 

after kataiscunqh,sh| Sy-S adds: evnw,pion tw/n avnakeime,nwn 

c. F omits the first kai.. 

for su,nage F reads a;ge 

for crh,simon F reads crh,simwteron 

at the end Sy-S, e read for tou/to crh,simon: 

kai. e;stai soi do,xa endoxo,teroj evnw,pion tw/n avnakeime,nwn 

Translation: 

a. But seek to increase from that which is small, and (not) from the greater to become less. 

b. When you enter into a house and are invited to dine, do not recline in the prominent places, 

lest perchance one more honorable than you come in, and the host come and say to you: "Go 

farther down" and you will be put to shame. 

c. But if you recline in the lower place and one inferior to you comes in, the host will say to you: 

"Go farther up" and this will be advantageous to you. 

Compare Lk 14:11+8-10 

NA 27 Luke 14:11 o[ti pa/j o` u`yw/n eàuto.n tapeinwqh,setai( kai. o` 

tapeinw/n eàuto.n u`ywqh,setaiÅ 

NA 27 Luke 14:8 o[tan klhqh/|j u`po, tinoj eivj ga,mouj( mh. katakliqh/|j eivj 

th.n prwtoklisi,an( mh,pote evntimo,tero,j sou h=| keklhme,noj u`pV auvtou/( 

9 kai. evlqw.n o` se. kai. auvto.n kale,saj evrei/ soi\ do.j tou,tw| to,pon( kai. 

to,te a;rxh| meta. aivscu,nhj to.n e;scaton to,pon kate,ceinÅ 

10 avllV o[tan klhqh/|j( poreuqei.j avna,pese eivj to.n e;scaton to,pon( i[na 

o[tan e;lqh| o` keklhkw,j se evrei/ soi\ fi,le( prosana,bhqi avnw,teron\ 

to,te e;stai soi do,xa evnw,pion pa,ntwn tw/n sunanakeime,nwn soiÅ 

Luke 14:11 "For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be 

exalted." 

8 "When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, 

in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; 9 and the host who 

invited both of you may come and say to you, 'Give this person your place,' and then in disgrace 

you would start to take the lowest place. 10 But when you are invited, go and sit down at the 

lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then 

you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you."

The first part u`mei/j ... ei=nai without the negation sounds "Thomas". 

Fortunately we have the Sy-C addition of mh., which makes better sense. But 

H.J. Vogels says: 

"the [addition of] mh. in the first sentence shows that one did not understand 

the meaning of this "witty paradoxon" (Wellhausen) and tried to work around it 

by emendation." [BZ] 

It is possible that the first sentence was originally independent (without the 

negative) and when it was combined with the following, the negative has been 

inserted to bring it into harmony. 

Compare for the first sentence also: 

NA 27 Matthew 20:26-27 ouvc ou[twj e;stai evn u`mi/n( avllV o]j eva.n qe,lh| evn 

u`mi/n me,gaj gene,sqai e;stai u`mw/n dia,konoj( 27 kai. o]j a'n qe,lh| evn u`mi/n 

ei=nai prw/toj e;stai u`mw/n dou/loj\ 

"It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 

and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave;" 

NA 27 Matthew 23:12 o[stij de. u`yw,sei eàuto.n tapeinwqh,setai kai. o[stij 

tapeinw,sei eàuto.n u`ywqh,setaiÅ 

"All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted." 

NA 27 Luke 18:14 le,gw u`mi/n( kate,bh ou-toj dedikaiwme,noj eivj to.n oi=kon 

auvtou/ parV evkei/non\ o[ti pa/j o` u`yw/n eàuto.n tapeinwqh,setai( o` de. 

tapeinw/n eàuto.n u`ywqh,setaiÅ 

"I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves 

will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted." 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Luke 22:27 ti,j ga.r mei,zwn( o` avnakei,menoj h' o` diakonw/nÈ ouvci. o` 

avnakei,menojÈ evgw. de. evn me,sw| u`mw/n eivmi w`j o` diakonw/nÅ 

Note that D here reads: 

ma/llon h' o` avnakei,menoj\ evgw. ga.r evn me,sw| h=lqon\ ouvc w`j o` 

avnakei,menoj avllV w`j o` diakonw/n\ kai. u`mei/j huvxh,qhte evn th/| diakoni,a| 

mou w`j o` diakonw/nÅ 

The second part sounds like a paraphrase of Lk 14:8-10. But Zahn notes (Comm. 

Mat.), probably correctly, that the wording and form deviates so strongly from 

Lk that it cannot be a harmonization to Lk, but must come from an apocryphal 

source, very old, at any rate. 

WH: "from an independent source." 

Metzger: "floating tradition".

Cureton: "it certainly belongs to the most ancient times of Christianity. ... and 

the fact of the same advice of our Lord in very similar words being found in Lk 

would at least make it appear that it is to be referred ultimately to him, 

whatever might have been the channel through which it has been derived". 

Nestle speculates that this piece possibly comes out of the Syriac and/or 

possibly from Tatian: "But I ask myself in vain how else this interpolation is to 

be explained except as an attempt at harmonizing." (compare his detailed 

discussion in the 2 nd German edition of his TC introduction.) 

o` deipnoklh,twr = "lord of the supper", seems to be a Syriac expression. 

(Nestle is reminded of kth,twr = "owner, possessor", Act 4:34) 

Neither Ephrem nor Aphraates mention the passage though. 

Vogels [BZ] agrees with a Tatianic origin, but thinks of a Greek original. He 

notes that deipnoklh,twr is used for tw/| keklhko,ti auvto,n in Lk 14:12 by Sy- 

C and Sy-S! 

Important Literature: 

H.J. Vogels "Ein Apokrypher Zusatz im Mt-Evangelium (20:28)" 

BZ 12 (1914) 369 - 390 [gives all texts and variants] 

Vogels mentions a Latin 15 th CE Gospel harmony (Berlin MS theol. fol. 7, fol. 

236R) which reads after Mt 20:28: 

Vos autem queritis modico crescere et de maximo minui. 

Cum autem introieritis ad cenam vocati nolite recumbere in superioribus 

locis ne forte dignior superveniat et accedens ipse qui te invitavit dicat tibi. 

Adhuc inferius accede et confundaris. 

Si autem recubueris in inferiora loca (corr. loco) et advenerit humilior te 

dicat tibi qui te invitavit accede superius et erit tibi hoc melius. 

E. Nestle ZNW 7 (1906) 362-4 

Nestle mentions a note by P. Sabatier in his "Bibliorum sacrorum latinae" (1751) 

where Sabatier writes: 

"Praeterea idem assumentum totidem pene verbis exstat Graece ex 

tribus Apographis in Bibliorum polyglott. Londinensium, to. VI. en illa: 

u`mei/j de. zhtei/te evk mikrou/ auvxh,sai 

kai. evk mei,zonoj e;latton ei=nai al. evlattou/sqai 

Eadem exstant Graece ex tribus Mss. codicibus in Bibliorum polyglott. 

Londin. tomo VI. 

eivserco,menoi de. kai. paraklhqe,ntej deipnh/sai (al. 

deipnei/sqai) mh. avnaklei,nasqe (al. avnakli,nesqe) … crh,simon 

[the rest as in D]

Nestle asks: "From where is the Aorist avnakli,nesqe and deipnei/sqai?" [The 

D readings are avnaklei,nesqai and deipnh/sai.] 

and: "How can Sabatier make this definite statement of three Greek 

manuscripts attesting this passage and where did he get his variants?" 

F was not yet known in Sabatier's time. It was published in 1885/86. 

Compare variant 21:9 below! 


TVU 285 



NA 27 Matthew 20:30 evle,hson h`ma/j( Îku,rie(Ð uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

BYZ Matthew 20:30 evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie uiò.j Daui,d 

evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie P45 vid , C, W, X, D, f1, 22, 33, 579, Maj, 

f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Bois 

evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( VIhsou/j N, S, 124, 1689(=f13), Sy-Pal mss 

evle,hson h`ma/j( VIhsou/j 01, Q, f13, 700, mae-2, Sy-Pal ms 

ku,rie( evle,hson h`ma/j( VIhsou/j L, 892 

ku,rie( evle,hson h`ma/j( B, Z, 085, 0281, 892, pc, Lat(aur, g 1 , l, r 1 , vg), 

sa, bo, NA 25 , WH, Gre, Weiss, Trg, SBL 

evle,hson h`ma/j D, f13-part, 118, 209(=f1), 346(=f13), 157, 565, pc, 

it(a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , h, n), Sy-C, mae-1, Tis, Bal 

P45: I am giving here the reconstruction by Min (ANTF 34) p. 111 + 152. Even 

though most of the letters are within a lacuna, it is clear that P45 reads the 

Majority reading here. Unfortunately we don't have P45 for verse 31. 

menoi para th]n odon akousantes [oti i*h paragei ekraxan legon 

tes elehson hma]s k*e u*e dauido de oc[los epetimhsen autois ina 

siwphswsin oi de poll]w ekraugasan [legontes elehson hmas k*e 

In NA the addition of VIhsou/j is an extra variation unit, which is unfortunate, 

because then the 01, Q support is added to D et al. for omitting Ku,rie. 

Basically we have here an exchange of Ku,rie/VIhsou/j though. The two units 

must be combined and presented in a form like that above! 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Next verse: 

NA 27 Matthew 20:31 evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

txt C, W, D, f1, 33, Maj, Sy-C, Sy-H, mae-1, Bois 

3 1 2 01, B, D, L, Z, Q, 085, f13, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-P, sa, bo, NA 25 , WH, Gre, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL 

1 2 118, 579, 700 

evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( evle,hson h`ma/j( uiò.j Daui,d mae-2

Taking both verses together, we get the following support: 

1 2 3 1 2 3 

e) h) K e) h) K C, W, f1, 33, Maj, 

e) h) K$I% e) h) 579, (700) 

e) h) e) h) K 565, pc 

e) h) e) h) 118 

e) h) K e) h) D 

e) h) I K e) h) 01, Q, f13 

K e) h) K e) h) B, Z, 085 

K e) h) I K e) h) L, 892 

Interestingly the order [3-1-2 + 1-2-3] does not exist! Also, the [1-2-3+ 3-1-2] 

order only exists in the deviant form with VIhsou/j. 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:47 uiè. Daui.d VIhsou/( evle,hso,n meÅ 

uiè. Daui.d ( evle,hso,n meÅ L, Q, Y, 579, pc 

VIhsou/ uiè. Daui.d evle,hso,n meÅ f13, (28), 565 

NA 27 Mark 10:48 uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

VIhsou/ uiè. Daui.d evle,hso,n meÅ f13, (28, 1071), 1342 

NA 27 Luke 18:38 VIhsou/ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ A, E, K, P, 579, pc 

NA 27 Luke 18:39 uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

VIhsou/ uiè. Daui.d evle,hso,n meÅ 01, U, f1, f13 

It is interesting to note that in the parallel accounts of Mk and Lk the 

exclamation is different in both verses. 

Other Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:27 evle,hson h`ma/j( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

add VIhsou/: C*, add ku,rie: N, f13 

NA 27 Matthew 15:22 evle,hso,n me( ku,rie uiò.j Daui,d\ safe! 

NA 27 Matthew 17:15 ku,rie( evle,hso,n mou to.n uiò,n( 

omit ku,rie: 01 

NA 27 Luke 16:24 pa,ter VAbraa,m( evle,hso,n me 

NA 27 Luke 17:13 VIhsou/ evpista,ta( evle,hson h`ma/jÅ

The order was probably not really a problem per se, because both forms already 

occurred and have been left untouched (Mt 9:27, 15:22, 17:15). So, something 

must have been problematic here. 

The omission of ku,rie could be inspired by Mt 9:27, the addition by 15:22. The 

variant of B et al. could come from Mt 17:15. 

Looking at the variation in the parallels, one notes a tendency to conform the 

two exclamations to each other. Some conform the first to the second and some 

the second to the first. 

Unfortunately in Mt both verses are insecure. Looking at the external evidence 

it appears most probable that ku,rie evle,hson h`ma/j by 01, B et al. is the 

original reading in verse 31. 

Min (ANTF 34, p. 292) additionally suggests that this reading is the harder one, 

because it violates the rule that normally two addresses are not separated by 

evle,hson (see examples above). 

Combining these two arguments one gets for verses 30 + 31 either the [1-2 + 3- 

1-2] or the [1-2-3 + 3-1-2] reading as the original. This means, we have to follow 

either D or 01, Q. Note that Q is Alexandrian in this part of Mt. 

The support for the D reading is incoherent and the omission is probably at least 

in part accidental. Nevertheless one can argue that the shortest reading is the 

original and all others are attempts to fill up. 

It should be noted that the 01, Q reading is deviant in that it has VIhsou/j in 

verse 30. This is especially interesting, since both Mk and Lk have VIhsou/j in the 

first exclamation, too. This could be an indication of originality, but also of a 

(partial) harmonization to (Mk)/Lk. 

Min (ANTF 34, p. 292), who argues for the D reading, is misguided by the 

unfortunate arrangement in the NA apparatus (see note above), which gives 

quite a strong support for the omission of ku,rie. But the evidence is more 

complicated. 

The L, 892 reading is either a conflation or originated from an erroneous 

correction. Either ku,rie or VIhsou/ has been added above the line and has been 

inserted without deleting the other word. Unfortunately one cannot decide. 

Here is the argumentation by Metzger (UBS committee): 

Verse 30: The VIhsou/ variants are considered secondary, because the parallels 

contain VIhsou/. The shortest reading is a conformation to Mt 9:27. They do not

eally make a decision about the position of ku,rie: "As the least unsatisfactory 

resolution of all the diverse problems a majority of the committee decided to 

adopt the reading of P45, C et al. [1-2-3], but, in view of the variation in the 

position of ku,rie, to enclose this word within square brackets." 

Verse 31: The committee adopted the [1-2-3] reading, because "it is the nonliturgical 

order of words and so would have been likely to be altered in 

transcription to the more familiar sequence." 

The following witnesses changed the text in one of the parallels: 

01, A, E, K, P, L, Q, Y, f1, f13, 28, 565, 579, pc 

Removing them from the list of witnesses, we are left with the following: 

e) h) K e) h) K C, W, 33, Maj, 

e) h) K e) h) D 

K e) h) K e) h) B, Z, 085 

If we accept the K e) h) reading in verse 31, we should accept then probably 

the e) h) or e) h) K reading in verse 30, to make the two formulas different. 

Against e) h) K could be argued that the Byzantine text also changed the word 

e;kraxan into e;krazon (see next variant). This would make the witnesses C, W, 

33, Maj suspicious here, too. 

Overall we have to conclude that there is no decisive evidence for verse 30. The 

UBS committee also did not come to a decision. The support is just too divided 

and internal arguments are rather weak. At least we agree with Min (= B. Aland?) 

in accepting the 3-1-2 reading in verse 31 against NA. 

Note that many witnesses (P45, C, D, N, 085, 0281, f1, 33, 565, 579, 1241, 1424, 

Maj-part) read uiè. instead of uiò.j. Weiss notes that possibly the vocative 

ku,rie has been extended to the second vocative uiè.. 

Compare: 

K.S. Min ANTF 34 (Mt papyri, 2005) p. 290 – 93 

verse 30: 


probably best to leave txt as is with brackets. 

verse 31: 


retain NA 25 3-1-2 reading

TVU 286 


NA 27 Matthew 20:31 o` de. o;cloj evpeti,mhsen auvtoi/j i[na siwph,swsin\ oi` 

de. mei/zon e;kraxan le,gontej\ evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

evkrau,gazon Q, f13, 157 

evkrau,gasan P45 

e;kraxan 01, B, D, L, Z, P*, 085, 0281, 700, 892, pc 

e;krazon C, K, W, X, D, f1, 33, 579, Maj 

2, 157 omit due to h.t. (evle,hson h`ma/j( ku,rie( uiò.j Daui,d). 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 10:48 kai. evpeti,mwn auvtw/| polloi. i[na siwph,sh|\ o` de. pollw/| 

ma/llon e;krazen\ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

NA 27 Luke 18:39 kai. oi` proa,gontej evpeti,mwn auvtw/| i[na sigh,sh|( auvto.j 

de. pollw/| ma/llon e;krazen\ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n meÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 4:41 evxh,rceto de. kai. daimo,nia avpo. pollw/n krÎaugÐa,zonta 

kai. le,gonta o[ti su. ei= o` uiò.j tou/ qeou/Å 

kra,zonta B, C, K, L, N, Q, X, Y, f1, 33, 565, 579, 892, 1241, 1424, pm 

krauga,zonta A, D, Q, W, G, D, f13, 700, pm, Or 


NA 27 Matthew 20:30 kai. ivdou. du,o tufloi. kaqh,menoi para. th.n o`do,n 

avkou,santej o[ti VIhsou/j para,gei( e;kraxan le,gontej\ evle,hson h`ma/j( 

Îku,rie(Ð uiò.j Daui,dÅ 

The parallels have e;kraxen both safe. krauga,zw appears only once in Mt and 

once in Lk, but 6 times in Jo (11:43; 12:13; 18:40; 19:6, 12, 15). 

Possibly krauga,zw is even more intense? 


TVU 287 

NA 27 Matthew 20:34 splagcnisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j h[yato tw/n ovmma,twn 

auvtw/n( kai. euvqe,wj avne,bleyan kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/|Å 

BYZ Matthew 20:34 splagcnisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j h[yato tw/n ovfqalmw/n 

auvtw/n kai. euvqe,wj avne,bleyan auvtw/n oi` ovfqalmoi.( kai. hvkolou,qhsan 

auvtw/| 

Byz 01, C, K, P, W, X, D, f1, 33, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj 

txt B, D, L, Z, Q, f13, 892, pc, Or 

B alone reads: h[yato auvtw/n tw/n ovmma,twn 

B: possible umlaut! (line 6 C left, p. 1262) h[yato tw/n ovmma,twn 

It is not completely clear if this is really an umlaut. First, it is on the "wrong" 

side (but the other umlaut in this column, line 25, is also on the left side!), 

second it looks more like a bar, or three very near dots. 

If it is an umlaut it is quite possible that it indicates the word-order variant by 

B. 

o;mma = "eye" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 8:23 kai. evpilabo,menoj th/j ceiro.j tou/ tuflou/ evxh,negken 

auvto.n e;xw th/j kw,mhj kai. ptu,saj eivj ta. o;mmata auvtou/( 

o;mma is a rare word. It appears only once more in the NT, in Mk 8:23. I appears 

7 times in Proverbs and Wisdom. BDAG notes: "more common in poetry than in 

prose". Robertson (Wordpictures) writes: "a common poetic word (Euripides) and 

occurs in the papyri". 

There is no reason to introduce this rare word here. It has probably been 

changed to the more common ovfqalmw/n. 

Note the addition/omission of auvtw/n oi` ovfqalmoi. later in the verse (see next 

variant). It is possible that these two changes are connected. So one could think 

that ovmma,twn has been changed into ovfqalmw/n as a conformation to context. 

A change the other way round is not probable, because in the witnesses that 

have ovmma,twn the addition of auvtw/n oi` ovfqalmoi. is not present, so there is 

not need for a change. 


TVU 288 

NA 27 Matthew 20:34 splagcnisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j h[yato tw/n ovmma,twn 

auvtw/n( kai. euvqe,wj avne,bleyan kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/|Å 

BYZ Matthew 20:34 splagcnisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j h[yato tw/n ovfqalmw/n 

auvtw/n kai. euvqe,wj avne,bleyan auvtw/n oi` ovfqalmoi.( kai. hvkolou,qhsan 

auvtw/| 

Byz C, K, P, W, X, D, f13-part, 579, 1241, Maj, q, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, D, L, Z vid , Q, f1, 124, 788(=f13-part), 22, 28, 33, 700, 892, pc, 

Lat, Sy-C, Co(+ mae-2) 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:30 kai. hvnew,|cqhsan auvtw/n oi` ovfqalmoi,Å kai. evnebrimh,qh 

auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j le,gwn\ o`ra/te mhdei.j ginwske,twÅ 

NA 27 Mark 10:52 kai. euvqu.j avne,bleyen kai. hvkolou,qei auvtw/| evn th/| o`dw/|Å 

NA 27 Luke 18:43 kai. paracrh/ma avne,bleyen kai. hvkolou,qei auvtw/| 

It is either: 

"and immediately they regained their sight" 

"and immediately their eyes regained their sight" 

The addition is probably inspired either by the immediate context (verse 34a), 

or by 9:30. 

Both Mk and Lk don't have the addition, thus the omission could be a 

harmonization. 

The phrase avnable,yaj toi/j ovfqalmoi/j appears several times in the LXX, but 

not in the NT. The meaning in the LXX is always "lift up ones eyes" (Compare: 

Gen 13:14; 18:2; 22:4, 13; 24:63; 24:64; 31:12; 37:25; 43:29; Deut 3:27; Jos 

5:13; Jda 19:17; 1 Sam 14:27; Zech 5:5; Isa 40:26; Ezek 8:5). 

It is possible that the words have been omitted as redundant. avnable,pw alone 

already means "regain sight". It is also possible in light of the LXX meaning that 

the words have been omitted to avoid the interpretation as "their eyes were 

lifted up". 

Compare also previous variant.




TVU 289 

NA 27 Matthew 21:4 tou/to de. ge,gonen i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. 

tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj\ 

Byz Matthew 21:4 Tou/to de. o[lon ge,gonen( i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. 

tou/ profh,tou( le,gontoj( 

Byz B, C C3 , W, X, D, f1, f13, 28, 33, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

q, vg Cl , Sy-H, sa, mae-1, arm, geo 

txt 01, C*, D, L, Z, Q, 372, 892, 1241, L844, L2211, pc, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, bo, Or 

Note also this variant in this verse: 

add Zechariah M mg , 42, pc, a, c, h, bo ms , Chr, Hil 

add Isaiah r 2 , vg mss , bo ms , aeth 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:22 tou/to de. o[lon ge,gonen i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n u`po. 

kuri,ou dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj\ omit o[lon: Sy-S, Sy-C 

NA 27 Matthew 26:56 tou/to de. o[lon ge,gonen i[na plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai. 

tw/n profhtw/nÅ omit o[lon: vg ms 

The phrase, with or without o[lon appears only in Mt, three times. In 1:22 and 

26:56 it is basically safe. 

Since there is no reason why the word should have fallen out here, it is more 

probable that it has been added as a conformation to verses 1:22 and 26:56. 

That the scribe of B was inattentive here can be seen from the fact that 

immediately following o[lon he produces the blunder 

i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n 

dia. tou/ plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n 

dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj 

Of course this is no proof that inattentiveness caused o[lon, too. 


TVU 290 


NA 27 Matthew 21:5 ei;pate th/| qugatri. Siw,n\ 

ivdou. o` basileu,j sou e;rcetai, soi prau>j kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. o;non 

kai. evpi. pw/lon uiò.n u`pozugi,ouÅ 

kai. evpi. pw/lon ne,on f1, Or? (Not in NA and SQE!) 

kai. pw/lon uiò.n u`pozugi,ou C, D, W, X, D, Q, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, mae-1, bo, Or 

kai. evpi. pw/lon u`pozugi,ou 01 C1 , L, Z, pc 

kai. evpi. pw/lon uiò.n u`pozugi,ou 01*, B, N, 124, 700, pc, Sy, sa 

kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. pw/lon uiò.n o;nou mae-2 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Origen (Comm. Mat 16:14): 

e;ti de. avnti. tou/ 

kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. o;non kai. pw/lon uiò.n u`pozugi,ouÅ 

kei/tai\ kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. o;non kai. pw/lon ne,on 

h' w`j e;n tisi pw/lon u`pozugi,ou 

But yet in place of "and mounted on an ass and a colt, the foal of a donkey", lies, "and 

mounted on an ass and a young colt", or as in some [copies], "colt of a donkey". 

The above is the text as it stands, but it has been suggested that the text is 

corrupt and that the original read thus: 

e;ti de. avnti. tou/ 

kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. u`pozu,gion kai. pw/lon ne,on (Zech 9:9) 

e,xe,qeto o` Matqai/oj to. 

kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. o;non kai. pw/lon uiò.n u`pozugi,ouÅ 

h' w`j e;n tisi pw/lon u`pozugi,ou 

(compare E. Hautsch "Die Evangelienzitate des Origenes", p. 72-3) 

Parallel: 

LXX Zechariah 9:9 cai/re sfo,dra qu,gater Siwn kh,russe qu,gater 

Ierousalhm ivdou. o` basileu,j sou e;rcetai, soi di,kaioj kai. sw,|zwn 

auvto,j prau>j kai. evpibebhkw.j evpi. u`pozu,gion kai. pw/lon ne,on 

f1: Harmonization to the LXX.

P. Williams comments on the Syriac: 

"In support of the second evpi. NA27 cites CP (S not being extant). 

However, Syriac seems to avoid double duty prepositions, and therefore 

NA27’s citation does not seem certain. CP could have added the second εσ 

due to preferences internal to Syriac." 



What Origen really wrote is not fully clear, but at least he knew that there are 

variants. 


TVU 291 


NA 27 Matthew 21:9 oi` de. o;cloi oi` proa,gontej auvto.n kai. oi` 

avkolouqou/ntej e;krazon le,gontej\ w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d\ euvloghme,noj 

o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou\ w`sanna. evn toi/j u`yi,stoij Þ Å 

Þ kai. evxh/lqon eivj u`pa,nthsin auvtw/| polloi. cai,rontej kai. doxa,zontej 

to.n qeo.n peri. pa,ntwn w-n ei=don 

Sy-C 

Þ avph,ntwn de. auvtw/| polloi. cai,rontej kai. doxa,zontej 

to.n qeo.n peri. pa,ntwn w-n ei=don 

F 

Sy-S has a lacuna. Burkitt notes that the space on the missing page is probably 

too small to contain the words. 

B: no umlaut 

avph,ntwn avpanta,w "meet" 

Parallel: 

NA 27 John 12:13 kai. evxh/lqon eivj u`pa,nthsin auvtw/| kai. evkrau,gazon\ 

w`sanna,\ euvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou( Îkai.Ð o` 

basileu.j tou/ VIsrah,lÅ 

NA 27 Luke 19:37 evggi,zontoj de. auvtou/ h;dh pro.j th/| kataba,sei tou/ o;rouj 

tw/n evlaiw/n h;rxanto a[pan to. plh/qoj tw/n maqhtw/n cai,rontej aivnei/n 

to.n qeo.n fwnh/| mega,lh| peri. pasw/n w-n ei=don duna,mewn( 

Note the previous addition at 20:28 which is also supported by F and Sy-C! 

The present variant looks like a careful mixture of Jo and Lk. Possibly from the 

Diatessaron or some other harmony. From the Arabic Diatessaron this reading 

cannot be deduced. 


TVU 292 


NA 27 Matthew 21:11 oi` de. o;cloi e;legon\ ou-to,j evstin o` profh,thj VIhsou/j 

o` avpo. Nazare.q th/j Galilai,ajÅ 


oi` de. polloi. D, pc 

polloi.` de. f1, 22, Or! 

multi autem a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , h 

txt aur, f, g 1 , l, q, vg 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 


NA 27 Matthew 21:10 Kai. eivselqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj ~Ieroso,luma evsei,sqh 

pa/sa h` po,lij le,gousa\ ti,j evstin ou-tojÈ 

Probably an improvement. It makes not good sense when pa/sa h` po,lij asks 

who he is and then oi` de. o;cloi (=all again) answers this. 


TVU 293 


NA 27 Matthew 21:12 Kai. eivsh/lqen VIhsou/j eivj to. ièro.n 

kai. evxe,balen pa,ntaj tou.j pwlou/ntaj kai. avgora,zontaj evn tw/| ièrw/|( 

kai. ta.j trape,zaj tw/n kollubistw/n kate,streyen kai. ta.j kaqe,draj 

tw/n pwlou,ntwn ta.j peristera,j( 

BYZ Matthew 21:12 Kai. eivsh/lqen o` VIhsou/j eivj to. ièro,n tou/ qeou/ 

kai. evxe,balen pa,ntaj tou.j pwlou/ntaj kai. avgora,zontaj evn tw/| ièrw/| 

kai. ta.j trape,zaj tw/n kollubistw/n kate,streyen kai. ta.j kaqe,draj 

tw/n pwlou,ntwn ta.j peristera,j 

T&T #57 

Byz C, D, W, X, D, S, F, f1, 69, 124, 174, 346, 983(=f13-part), 22, Maj, 

Lat, Sy, geo 2A , Basil(4 th CE), Gre, Bois, Trg mg , Bal 

txt 01, B, L, Q, 0281, 13, 543, 826, 828, 788(=f13-part), 33, 517, 700, 892, 

1424, 1675, 2786, al 38 , b, Sy-Pal, Co(+ mae-2), arm, geo 1+B , aeth 

al = 73, 160, 218, 295, 333, 423, 837, 948, 968, 1000, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1055, 1085, 

1129, 1223, 1225 C , 1289, 1293, 1295, 1403, 1414, 1418, 1421, 1441 C , 1451, 1478 C , 

1510, 1515*, 1554, 1574, 2096, 2191, 2356, 2476, 2507, 2747 

Lacuna: Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 11:15 Kai. eivselqw.n eivj to. ièro.n 

NA 27 Luke 19:45 Kai. eivselqw.n eivj to. ièro.n 


NA 27 Matthew 21:13 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ge,graptai\ o` oi=ko,j mou oi=koj 

proseuch/j klhqh,setai( 

2.Esdra 5:43,54 has to. ièro,n tou/ qeou/ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:61 du,namai katalu/sai to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 3:17 ei; tij to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ fqei,rei( 

NA 27 2 Thessalonians 2:4 w[ste auvto.n eivj to.n nao.n tou/ qeou/ 

+ 3 times in Rev.

Compare also: 

NA 27 Luke 1:9 ... eivselqw.n eivj to.n nao.n tou/ kuri,ou( 

C*, D, Y, 579, 1071, 1424, 2542, pc: nao.n tou/ qeou/ 

This term appears only here in the Greek Bible, but it cannot have been a rare 

phrase. It might have been inserted to emphasize the contrast of profane 

business and the holiness of the place. For Jews it is clear anyway that the 

temple is God's. 

Note that in both Mk and Lk the short reading is safe. 

It is not very probable that it has been omitted to harmonize with Mk, Lk (so 

Hoskier). Hoskier also suggested that the term might have been omitted as 

redundant. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 133) notes that in the next verse God calls the temple "my 

house". 




TVU 294 


NA 27 Matthew 21:18 Prwi> de. evpana,gwn eivj th.n po,lin evpei,nasenÅ 

evpanagagw,n 01*, B*, L, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg mg , Tis, Bal 

txt evpana,gwn 01 C2 , B C1 , C, Q, f1, f13, 892, Maj, WH mg , Trg 

para,gwn D, it, Bois (!) 

u`pa,gwn W 

transiens a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , h 

revertens aur, f, g 1 , l, q, vg 

B: p. 1263 B 18, the ga is left unenhanced. Both letters have a dot above it to 

indicate the error. 

B: no umlaut 

evpana,gwn participle present active nominative masculine singular 

evpanagagw,n participle aorist active nominative masculine singular 

evpana,gw "return" 

Probably accidental. 


TVU 295 


NA 27 Matthew 21:19 kai. ivdw.n sukh/n mi,an evpi. th/j o`dou/ h=lqen evpV auvth.n 

kai. ouvde.n eu-ren evn auvth/| eiv mh. fu,lla mo,non( kai. le,gei auvth/|\ 

mhke,ti evk sou/ karpo.j ge,nhtai eivj to.n aivw/naÅ kai. evxhra,nqh 

paracrh/ma h` sukh/Å 

ouv mhke,ti B, L, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg mg 

txt 01, C, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 700, 892, Maj 

B: no umlaut 

mhke,ti adv. "no longer, no more" 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 11:14 kai. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvth/|\ mhke,ti eivj to.n aivw/na evk 

sou/ mhdei.j karpo.n fa,goiÅ kai. h;kouon oi` maqhtai. auvtou/Å 

In Mk the reading is safe. 

ouv mhke,ti is an intensification. If it is intentional or accidental is difficult to 

say. If original, there would have been no reason for a change. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) argues that the omission is a harmonization to Mk. 


TVU 296 


NA 27 Matthew 21:23 Kai. evlqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj to. ièro.n prosh/lqon auvtw/| 

dida,skonti oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ le,gontej\ evn 

poi,a| evxousi,a| tau/ta poiei/jÈ kai. ti,j soi e;dwken th.n evxousi,an tau,thnÈ 

Not in NA but in SQE and Tis! 

omit: 7(sic!), it, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-C, Or pt 

Not D! Tis is wrong here. 

omit: a, b, c, ff 1 , ff 2C , h, l, r 1 , vg mss 

have it: aur, d, f, ff 2 *, g 1 , q, vg 

B: no umlaut 

Western non-interpolation? 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 11:27 Kai. e;rcontai pa,lin eivj ~Ieroso,lumaÅ kai. evn tw/| ièrw/| 

peripatou/ntoj auvtou/ e;rcontai pro.j auvto.n oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` 

grammatei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi 

NA 27 Luke 20:1 Kai. evge,neto evn mia/| tw/n h`merw/n dida,skontoj auvtou/ to.n 

lao.n evn tw/| ièrw/| kai. euvaggelizome,nou evpe,sthsan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` 

grammatei/j su.n toi/j presbute,roij 

Streeter ("Four Gospels") calls attention to this omission. But he was under the 

wrong impression from Tischendorf that D supports the omission. 

Interesting (unusual?) word-order. Possibly omitted for stylistic reasons? 

Note also that dida,skonti/dida,skontoj is one of the so called Minor 

Agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk. 


TVU 297 



NA 27 Matthew 21:28 Ti, de. u`mi/n dokei/È a;nqrwpoj ei=cen te,kna du,oÅ 

kai. proselqw.n tw/| prw,tw| ei=pen\ te,knon( u[page sh,meron evrga,zou evn 

tw/| avmpelw/niÅ 

omit 01*, L, Z, WH, NA 25 , Gre, SBL 

txt 01 C2 , B, C, D, W, Q, 0102, 0293, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 21:30 proselqw.n de. tw/| e`te,rw| ei=pen w`sau,twjÅ 

BYZ Matthew 21:30 kai. proselqw.n tw/| deute,rw| ei=pen w`sau,twj 

Byz C, W, 0102, 579, Maj 

txt 01, B, D, L, Z, Q, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, pc 

There is no reason for an omission. Difficult to explain. 


TVU 298 



"The two sons" 

There are four versions of this story: 

1. The txt reading: 

NA 27 Matthew 21:29-31 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

ouv qe,lw( u[steron de. metamelhqei.j avph/lqenÅ 

30 proselqw.n de. tw/| e`te,rw| ei=pen w`sau,twjÅ o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

evgw,( ku,rie( kai. ouvk avph/lqen 

31 ti,j evk tw/n du,o evpoi,hsen to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,jÈ 

le,gousin\ o` prw/tojÅ 

txt 01, C, L, W, X, Z, D, 0102, 0281, f1, 33, 157, 565, 579, 892, Maj, c, f, q, 

vg, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Diatess Arab , mae-1, sa mss , Or, 

Bois, Gre, NA 27 , Tis, Bal, SBL 

B: umlaut! (line 40 C, p. 1263) avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ evgw, (in verse 29) 

This version and version 3 are divided regarding e`te,rw| / deute,rw| in verse 

30. e`te,rw| have here: 01*, C*, K, P, W, Y, D, 157, 565, 579, 1071, pm 

deute,rw| have: 01 C2 , C C2 , L, Z, f1, 33, 892, 1342, 1424, pm, SBL 

It would be better in NA to note the witnesses for both e`te,rw, and 

deute,rw, because Maj is divided. 


2. Western: 

29 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

ouv qe,lw( u[steron de. metamelhqei.j avph/lqen eivj to.n avmpelw/naÅ 

30 proselqw.n de. tw/| e`te,rw| ei=pen w`sau,twjÅ o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ 

evgw,( ku,rie( u[pagw( kai. ouvk avph/lqen 

31 ti,j evk tw/n du,o to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j evpoi,hsenÈ 

le,gousin\ o` e;scatoj 

D, it, vg mss , Sy-S, Hier mss , Hilary (4 th CE), (Lachmann, Tregelles) 

NA wrongly cites Sy-C for the Western reading! 

Lachmann and Tregelles read o` u[steroj from B. 

Literal Sy-C translation by Pete Williams, Cambridge: 

29 "He said/says to him, 'I am not willing', but afterwards he regretted it [his soul regretted him] and 

he went to the vineyard. 30 and he said to the [an] other likewise. And he answered and said, 'Yes, 

My Lord', and he did not go. 31 Who from these two does it seem to you did the will of his father?" 

They say to him, "The first/former".

3. B et al. 

29 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen( 

evgw, ku,rie kai, ouvk avph/lqen B: umlaut! (line 40 C, p. 1263) 

30 proselqw.n de. tw/| deute,rw| ei=pen w`sau,twjÅ o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen( 

ouv qe,lw u[steron metamelhqei,j avph/lqen B: no umlaut 

31 ti,j evk tw/n du,o evpoi,hsen to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,jÈ 

le,gousin\ o` u[steroj B: no umlaut 

Support: B, Q, 0233, f13, 700, pc, 

r 2 , vg ms , Sy-Pal, sa mss , bo, arm, geo, Diatess 

NA 25 , WH, Weiss, von Soden, Merk, Vogels 

The B et al. version actually comes in two sub-versions: 

evgw, ku,rie B, sa mss , bo, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

u[pagw Q 

u[pagw ku,rie 0233, f13, 700, von Soden, Merk, Vogels 

Ephrem-Armenian (Syr lac.) 

deute,rw| B, 700, sa mss , bo, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, von Soden, Merk, Vogels 

e`te,rw| Q, f13 

ouv qe,lw u[steron B, sa mss , bo, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, 

ouv qe,lw u[steron de. Q, f13, 700, von Soden, Merk, Vogels 

o` u[steroj B, sa mss , bo, NA 25 , WH, Weiss, 

o` e;scatoj Q, f13, 700, von Soden, Merk, Vogels (also D) 

4. mae-2, geo 2A : (Schenke's reconstruction) 

29 ei=pen( 

nai.( kai, ouvk avph/lqen 

30 meta. tou/to proselqw.n tw/| deute,rw| ei=pen au,tw/| w`sau,toujÅ ei=pen( 

ou;( u[steron de. metamelhqei,j avph/lqen 

31 ti,j evx auvtw/n evstin o` poih,saj to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j auvtw/nÈ 

le,gousin\ o` prw/tojÅ 

German translation by Schenke: 

21:28 "Was ist es, das ihr sagt? Ein Mann, der zwei Söhne hatte, er kam zu dem 

ersten und sprach zu ihm: 'Geh' heute! Arbeite in meinem Weinberg!' 

29 Er sprach: 'Ja', und ging nicht. 

30 Danach kam er zu dem Zweiten. Er sagte ihm auch so. Er sprach: 'Nein!' 

Zuletzt aber bereute er (es) und ging. 

31 Wer von ihnen ist derjenige, der getan hat, was ihr Vater wollte?" Sie 

sprachen: "Der erste ist es."

Thus the four versions are: 

txt version: 

1. he answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and went. 

2. he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not go. 

3. They said, "The first." 

D version: 



3. They said, "The second." 

B version: 



3. They said, "The second." 

mae-2, geo 2A : 



3. They said, "The first." 

The question is which of these four versions is the original? The D-version is 

nonsensical and probably wrong. But how did it originate? 

Of the other three it can be argued that the B-version is also not really logical 

because, why did the father asked the second son at all, when the first said he 

will go? But Elliott (Festschrift Delobel, 2002, p. 73) suggested that possibly 

more than one worker is needed in the vineyard. 

The variation within the B-version also suggests two independent lines of 

transmission and possibly an independent (secondary) origin (so Zahn). It is 

possible though that the B version is original and has been changed for being not 

logical (so Weiss). 

The next main question is how did the other versions originate? 

WH obelized the part to indicate that an early error lies behind the whole 

tradition. 

Possibly the D-version was the cause for the B-version? That someone corrected 

the D-version in a way to retain the answer and changed the replies? 

Jerome knew manuscripts with the nonsense reading and "suggested, that 

through perversity the Jews intentionally gave an absurd reply in order to spoil 

the point of the parable." (Metzger) Compare Jerome (Comm. Matt.): 

Porro quod sequitur: Quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris? et illi dicunt: 

Novissimus, sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi Novissimum sed 

Primum, ut proprio iudicio condemnentur. Si autem novissimum voluerimus

legere, manifesta est interpretatio: ut dicamus intellegere quidem 

veritatem Iudaeos sed tergiversari et nolle dicere quod sentient, sicut et 

baptismum Iohannis scientes esse de caelo dicere nolverunt. (SC 259:128) 

One should know that with respect to what follows: "Which of the two did the father's 

will? And they said: The last", the authentic copies do not have "the last" but "the first." 

Thus they are condemned by their own judgment. Now if we want to read "the last", the 

interpretation is plain. We would say that the Jews indeed understand the truth, but they 

are evasive and do not want to say what they think. In the same way they also know that 

John‘s baptism is from heaven, but they were unwilling to say so. 

In mae-2 we have another "nonsense" reading. This reading is also found in 

manuscript A of geo 2 . 

It seems to be derived from the B-version giving the last missing possible 

permutation. Interesting. The two witnesses seem to represent quite different 

traditions and the reading is therefore valuable. From Schenke's reconstruction 

it seems that it is at least not exactly the B-version, because the sons answer 

with "yes" and "no". In verse 30 it has meta. tou/to. In 31: ti,j evx auvtw/n. 

There is the argument that the "nonsense" answer given in the Western 

tradition was meant to show just HOW ignorant the chief priests and the elders 

are. Later this was not understood anymore and scribes tried to correct the 

"nonsense" by changing a) the order of the sons or b) the answer. Compare also 

Mt 23:3: "they do not practice what they teach". That we now have also the 

Western reading in two different forms is more an argument against its 

originality. 

The D reading is the most difficult and the other readings can easily be 

explained as attempts to remove the difficulty (so thinks e.g. Tregelles). 

Tregelles ("An Account…, 1854, p. 107f.) explains this in an interesting way: The 

o` u[steroj does not refer to the order of the two sons, but to the words 

u[steron de. metamelhqei.j avph/lqen. Thus o` u[steroj, or better o` u[steron 

here means: "He who afterwards [repented and went]" = o` u[steron avpelqw.n. 

So already suggested by Lachmann. This thought originated probably from 

Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who further notes that the adjectival usage of 

u[steroj does not appear in the NT (in contrast to the adverb), except for 1.Tim 

4:1. 

The hardness of the reading is based on the ambiguity of o` u[steroj. It can be 

taken as o` u[steroj avpelqw.n or as o` deu,teroj. Most scribes took it in the 

latter meaning and where forced to a correction.

The following comments by WH, based on Lachmann are worth quoting: 

"Lachmann in the preface to his vol. 2 (p. V) treats the Jews answer as an early 

interpolation, together with the following words le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j. He 

was doubtless moved by the difficulty which it occasions in conjunction with the 

Western order, which he had adopted: but he points out that Origen's 

commentary contains no reference to anything said by the Jews. [Considering 

the difficulty of the Western combination of readings it seems not unlikely that 

Lachmann is substantially right; in which case the Western change of order 

would probably be due to a retrospective and mechanical application of 

proa,gousin (verse 31). W.] Lachmann weakens his suggestion however by 

including le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j in the supposed interpolation: this phrase 

might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might 

thus be thought to imply the interpolation of words spoken by others." 

Brilliant! Unfortunately only a conjecture. But a good one. Origen's silence is 

worth noting though. Origen discusses this parable very detailed, but does not 

mention any answer! Additionally it could be said in supporting this suggestion, 

that the answer of the Jews ("the first" or "the last") is unique in the NT. It is 

also unusual in antique literature. It too often happens that listeners do not 

really know anymore, who the first or the last was. Therefore in the NT the 

selected is specified in distinct terms. Compare: 

Luke 7:43 Simon answered, "I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater 

debt." And Jesus said to him, "You have judged rightly." 

Luke 19:24 He said to the bystanders, 'Take the pound from him and give it to the 

one who has ten pounds.' 

Here then also the above hypothesis comes into play, that o` u[steroj means: 

"He who afterwards [repented and went]" = o` u[steron avpelqw.n. 

Commentators often see a connection with the following verse 32, the 

explanation given by Jesus: 

NA 27 Matthew 21:32 h=lqen ga.r VIwa,nnhj pro.j u`ma/j evn o`dw/| dikaiosu,nhj( 

kai. ouvk evpisteu,sate auvtw/|( oi` de. telw/nai kai. ai` po,rnai evpi,steusan 

auvtw/|\ u`mei/j de. ivdo,ntej ouvde. metemelh,qhte u[steron tou/ pisteu/sai 

auvtw/|Å For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, 

but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; 

but you, after you saw it, did not change your minds and believe him. 

This verse explains the parable as: 

1. Jews, did not believe 

2. tax collectors and the prostitutes believed 

Even then the Jews did not change their minds

This explanation fits best to the B version: First son, who did not go = the Jews 

who did not believe. Second son, who went = tax collectors and the prostitutes. 

The question is, if this fits because it is original or because the txt form has 

been changed into the B form to make it fit better. 

That the form of the parable is connected with Jesus' explanation can be seen 

at the variant in verse 32: 


... u`mei/j de. ivdo,ntej ouvde. metemelh,qhte u[steron tou/ Þ pisteu/sai auvtw/|Å 

"... and you, having seen, repented not even at last - to believe him." 

ouvde. B, Q, S, F, 0102(=0138), 0233, f1, f13, 22, 33, 157, 700, 713, 

892, al, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo 

ouv 01, C, K, P, L, W, X, 565, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj, sa 

omit ouvde.: D, ff 1 *, Sy-S 

Þ mh.: a, b, ff 2 , h, r 1 

omit ouvde. and Þ mh.: c, e ("quod non credidistis") 

D omits u`mei/j … auvtw/|, probably due to parablepsis (auvtw/| - auvtw/|). 

Metzger: "The reading ouvde., supported by early and widely diversified 

witnesses, seems to have been altered to ouv by copyists who did not see the 

force of the argument ("and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse 

afterwards so as to believe him")." 

"The omission of the negative [D, Sy-S] is probably accidental, for the resulting 

sense ("but you, when you saw it, at last repented [i.e. changed your minds] so as 

to believe in him") seems to be an extremely inappropriate conclusion of Jesus' 

saying; likewise the transfer of the negative to the final verb is no less 

infelicitous ("... repented later because you did not believe in him")." 

R. Michaels has verse 32 as: "And you, when you saw it, regretted later (i.e. too 

late) because you did not believe him." He gives two possible translations for 

metemelh,qhte u[steron tou/ pisteu/sai auvtw/|: 

a) "you repented later so as to believe him." (taking tou/ pisteu/sai as an 

articular infinitive of purpose) 

b) "you regretted too late to believe him" (making tou/ pisteu/sai 

dependent upon u[steron understood as "too late".) 

According to WH "both changes (omit ouvde. and Þ mh.) being due to the 

misinterpretation of tou/."

W.C. Allen (ICC comm. Mt, 1912) writes: "It is difficult to think that the clause 

as it stands is original, but if any part is genuine, ouv or ouvde. metemelh,qhte 

must have belonged to it; possibly tou/ pisteu/sai auvtw/| is a later gloss. 

Schmid: "the Latin interpreter seems to have had problems with the consecutive 

Infinitive and referred it to the ouvk evpisteu,sate in verse 32a. Note the 

following changes: 

txt … metemelh,qhte u[steron tou/ pisteu/sai auvtw/|Å 

W … metemelh,qhte u[steron tw/| pisteu/sai auvtw/|Å 

Q … metemelh,qhte u[steron pisteu/sai evn auvtw/|Å 

124 … metemelh,qhte u[steron pisteu/sai auvtw/|Å 

33 … metemelh,qhte u[steron tou/ pisteu/sai evn auvtw/|Å 

28* … metemelh,qhte tou/ pisteu/sai eivj auvto. u[steron auvtw/|Å 

28 C … metemelh,qhte tou/ pisteu/sai u[steron auvtw/|Å 

Schmid (see below, following Riggenbach) explains: 

The Western text grew out of a misinterpretation of the parable and verse 32: 

29a. he answered, 'I will not'; 

30. he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not 

go. 

29b but later he changed his mind 

(metamelhqei.j) and went. 

For John came to you in the way of 

righteousness and you did not believe him, 

but the tax collectors and the prostitutes 

believed him; 

but you, after you saw it, did ___(!) change 

your minds (metemelh,qhte) and believe him. 

Schmid explains the development thus: 

One scribe/interpreter came across verse 31 "Verily I say to you, that the tax 

collectors and the prostitutes do go before you into the reign of God" and 

deduced from the "before you" that also the others (Pharisees) can go into the 

kingdom, but only later. He equates the son who later repents with the 

Pharisees. But then the Negation in verse 32 ouvde./ouv must be deleted. 

Consequently in a second step one has to equate the tax collectors with the son 

who said "I go". They did the will of the father. So the answer must be "the 

last"! 

So the two variants, the answer "the last" in verse 31 and the deletion of 

ouvde./ouv in verse 32 are connected, acc. to Riggenbach/Schmid. For Schmid then 

the Western form is the second step within the variant stemma. If version 1 or 

3 is original he leaves open. If for example one starts with version 1, the 

Western redactor changed "the first" into "the last". Later someone wanted to 

correct this error and changed the order of the two sons (= version 3) to get

the "normal" understanding. That he did not change it back to version 1 

indicates, according to Schmid, that he did not know version 1 anymore. 

To decide for version 1 or 3 Schmid, and also WH argue that normally the evil 

(the Jews, Pharisees) stands first in a parable (= version 3). Version 1 is "against 

all biblical analogy" (WH). 

Transmissionally it seems to be easiest to assume the Western version to be 

original, if one could only find a convincing exegetical explanation. This is still 

lacking. 

Overall this is a very difficult problem and a fully convincing solution is currently 

not available. The transmission history is probably very complicated. 

It might be worth studying the early comments by church fathers in detail. 

Compare: 

• Alexander Schweizer "Erklärung der Erzählung Mt 21:28-32 nach der von 

Lachmann aufgenommenen Lesart." TSK 12 (1839) 944-964 

• E. Riggenbach "Zur Exegese und Textkritik zweier Gleichnisse Jesu" in 

"Aus Schrift und Geschichte", Festschrift A. Schlatter 1922, p. 26-34 

• J. Schmid "Das textgeschichtliche Problem der Parabel von den zwei 

Söhnen." in "Vom Wort des Lebens", Festschrift M. Meinertz, Münster 

1951, p. 68-84 [who argues for the B version] 

• JR Michaels "The parable of the regretful son" HTR 61 (1968) 15-26 [who 

argues for the Western reading.] 

• JK Elliott "The parable of the two sons" in "Festschrift Delobel", Leuven 

2002, p. 67 – 77 


TVU 299 


NA 27 Matthew 21:44 Îkai. o` pesw.n evpi. to.n li,qon tou/ton sunqlasqh,setai\ 

evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh| likmh,sei auvto,nÅÐ 

"The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls." 


omit: P104 vid , D, 33, 

it(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , r 1 ), Sy-S, Or, Eus Syr , mae-2, Tis, Gre, Bois, Bal 

txt 01, B, C, L, W, X, Z, Q, 0102, f1, f13, 579, 700, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, c, f, g 1 , h, l, q, vg), Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, arm, geo, Diatess Arabic 

WH, NA 25 , Trg mg have the verse in brackets 

omit kai.: Q, P, 124, pc (not in NA!) 

B: no umlaut 

P104 (2 nd CE, POxy 4404): According to the editors it is possible that P104 

omits verse 44, too. None of the letters is very certain though, "making it 

hazardous to use this papyrus as evidence" (J.D. Thomas, ed.). 

B. Aland (Festschrift Delobel, 2002) writes: "[one variant reading of the papyrus 

is] extraordinary important. The papyrus seems to omit the complete verse 44." 

Unfortunately from the text on the verso very little is preserved. From the 

published image (online) one can reconstruct the following: 

[h basileia tou qu kai]doqhset[a]i 

[ eqnei poioun]ti t[o]us kar[pou]s 

[auths kai akou]sa[n]tes o[i arcie] 

[reis] 

43 h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ kai. doqh,setai 

e;qnei poiou/nti tou.j karpou.j 

auvth/jÅ 45 Kai. avkou,santej oi` avrcie 

rei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi ta.j parabola.j 

The green letters are very certain (red = doubtful). The reconstruction of 

doqh,setai is extremely insecure. I cannot make out a single letter. But the 

next two lines fit very good with the reconstruction.

The only other instance with the letter combination of ska and tes is in 

verse 21:23 (avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ le,gontej), but this 

is too far removed to fit on the same page (it would give about 50 lines per 

page). Another suggestion would be 21:24 (u`ma/j kavgw. lo,gon e[na( o]n eva.n 

ei;phte, moi). 

K.S. Min (ANTF 34, p. 234 ff.) writes: "the verso is not clear. Only with a lot of 

effort some letters can be made out. Nevertheless it is probable that the 

payrus omits the complete verse 44, as also the ed.pr. notes with reserve." 

P. Comfort (Encountering the manuscripts, p. 330) writes: "The exclusion of the 

verse is certain because the text on the verso of P104 can only be 

reconstructed with the verse missing." 

The reconstruction is quite probable but not entirely certain. We can 

reconstruct the two pages roughly as follows (white = present): 

Recto: 

DOULOUS AUTOU PROS 

TOUS GEWRGOUS LABEIN TOUS KAR 

POUS AUTOU. 35 KAI LABONTES OI GEWR 

GOI TOUS DOULOUS AUTOU ON MEN 

EDEIRAN, ON DE APEKTEINAN, ON 

DE ELIQOBOLHSAN. 36 PALIN APE 

STEILEN ALLOUS DOULOUS PLEIO 

NAS TWN PRWTWN, KAI EPOIHSAN 

AUTOIS WSAUTWS. 37 USTERON DE APE 

STEILEN PROS AUTOUS TON UION AU 

TOU LEGWN, ENTRAPHSONTAI TON 

UION MOU. 38 OI DE GEWRGOI IDONTES 

TON UION EIPON EN EAUTOIS, OU 

TOS ESTIN O KLHRONOMOS, DEUTE 

APOKTEINWMEN AUTON KAI SCW 

MEN THN KLHRONOMIAN AUTOU, 

39 KAI LABONTES AUTON EXEBAL 

ON EXW TOU AMPELWNOS KAI APE 

KTEINAN. 40 OTAN OUN ELQH O KURIOS 

TOU AMPELWNOS, TI POIHSEI TOIS 

GEWRGOIS EKEINOIS? 41 LEGOUSIN 

AUTW, KAKOUS KAKWS APOLESEI AU 

TOUS KAI TON AMPELWNA EKDWSETAI 

ALLOIS GEWRGOIS, OITINES APODW 

SOUSIN AUTW TOUS KARPOUS EN TOIS 

KAIROIS AUTWN. 42 LEGEI AUTOIS O IS, 

OUDEPOTE ANEGNWTE EN TAIS GRA 

FAIS, LIQON ON APEDOKIMASAN OI 

OIKODOMOUNTES, OUTOS EGENHQH 

Verso: 

EIS KEFALHN GWNIAS, PARA KURIOU 

EGENETO AUTH KAI ESTIN QAUMAS 

TH EN OFQALMOIS HMWN? 43 DIA TOUTO 

LEGW UMIN OTI ARQHSETAI AF UMWN 

H BASILEIA TOU QEOU KAI DOQHSETAI 

EQNEI POIOUNTI TOUS KARPOUS 

AUTHS. 45 KAI AKOUSANTES OI ARCIE 

REIS KAI OI FARISAIOI TAS PARABOLAS 

AUTOU EGNWSAN OTI PERI AUTWN 

LEGEI, 46KAI ZHTOUNTES AUTON 

KRATHSAI EFOBHQHSAN TOUS OCLOUS, 

EPEI EIS PROFHTHN AUTON EICON. 

…


I have come to the conclusion that one can assign a "vid" to P104 for the 

omission. 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 20:18 pa/j o` pesw.n evpV evkei/non to.n li,qon sunqlasqh,setai\ 

evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh|( likmh,sei auvto,nÅ 

"Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls." 

Previous verse 43: ... th.n oivki,an auvtou/Å 

kai. o` pesw.n ... likmh,sei auvto,nÅ 

Next verse 45: ... kai. avkou,santej oi` avrcierei/j 

Possibly the verse has been omitted by parablepsis: 

either auvtou/ - auvto,n or kai. - kai.. 

B. Aland (Festschrift Delobel, 2002) notes: "Because P104 has been copied so 

accurately and correct, it is improbable that the scribe made this reading up, 

but found it already in his exemplar. Thus the omission is very early. Verse 44 

could even be a secondary addition from Lk 20:18, added at the wrong place." 

It should be noted though, that the reading of P104 is not secure. 

The words are similar to Lk 20:18, but not identical: 

Mt kai. o` pesw.n evpi. to.n li,qon tou/ton sunqlasqh,setai\ 

evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh| likmh,sei auvto,nÅ 

Lk pa/j o` pesw.n evpV evkei/non to.n li,qon sunqlasqh,setai\ 

evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh|( likmh,sei auvto,nÅ 

This different wording, which is safe in both Gospels, makes it rather 

improbable that the verse is simply a harmonization to Lk.

If this is an early insertion a better insertion point would have been after 21:42. 

It could also be that verse 43 has been inserted by Mt into a text from his 

source, see Lk, where it is omitted: 

Mt 

42 Jesus said to them, 

"Have you never read in the 

scriptures: 'The stone that 

the builders rejected has 

become the cornerstone; 

this was the Lord's doing, 

and it is amazing in our 

eyes'? 

43 Therefore I tell you, the 

kingdom of God will be 

taken away from you and 

given to a people that 

produces the fruits of the 

kingdom. 

44 The one who falls on this 

stone will be broken to 

pieces; and it will crush 

anyone on whom it falls." 

Mk 

10 Have you not read this 

scripture: 'The stone that the 

builders rejected has 

become the cornerstone; 11 

this was the Lord's doing, 

and it is amazing in our 

eyes'?" 

Lk 

17 But he looked at them 

and said, "What then does 

this text mean: 'The stone 

that the builders rejected 

has become the 

cornerstone'? 

18 Everyone who falls on 

that stone will be broken to 

pieces; and it will crush 

anyone on whom it falls." 

Weiss (comm. Mat): "vs. 44 is original without doubt. If it came in from Lk it 

would have been placed after verse 42." He thinks (Textkritik, p. 183) that the 

verse has probably been deleted because it did not fit after the conclusion of 

the speech in vs. 43. 


= omission probably wrong

TVU 300 


NA 27 Matthew 22:4 pa,lin avpe,steilen a;llouj dou,louj le,gwn\ ei;pate toi/j 

keklhme,noij\ ivdou. to. a;risto,n mou h`toi,maka( oi` tau/roi, mou kai. ta. 

sitista. tequme,na kai. pa,nta e[toima\ deu/te eivj tou.j ga,moujÅ 

Not in NA and SQE, but in Tis! 

omit 1 f1, Or! 

omit 2 828(f13), b, e, r 1 , Sy-Pal ms , Legg adds: D, sa mss , arm mss 

Sy-S reads very short: 

"Behold, everything has been prepared, come to the banquet hall." (thus omitting 

to. a;risto,n … tequme,na) 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

Compare: 




omit first sou: 01, B, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

omit second sou: D, E, Q, f1, 22, 33, 565, pc, Lat, mae-1, arm 

Possibly omitted to improve style. 


TVU 301 


NA 27 Matthew 22:7 o` de. basileu.j wvrgi,sqh kai. pe,myaj ta. strateu,mata 

auvtou/ avpw,lesen tou.j fonei/j evkei,nouj kai. th.n po,lin auvtw/n 

evne,prhsenÅ 

Not in NA and SQE, but in Tis! 

avnei/len f1, 22, Or! 

B: no umlaut 

avnei/len from avnaire,w 

indicative aorist active 3rd person singular 

"do away with, kill, destroy, condemn to death" 

No parallel. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:16 To,te ~Hrw,|dhj ivdw.n o[ti evnepai,cqh u`po. tw/n ma,gwn 

evqumw,qh li,an( kai. avpostei,laj avnei/len pa,ntaj tou.j pai/daj 

The word is probably inspired from Mt 2:16 where Herod also got angry 

(evqumw,qh li,an). 


TVU 302 



NA 27 Matthew 22:10 kai. evxelqo,ntej oi` dou/loi evkei/noi eivj ta.j o`dou.j 

sunh,gagon pa,ntaj ou]j eu-ron( ponhrou,j te kai. avgaqou,j\ kai. evplh,sqh 

o` ga,moj avnakeime,nwnÅ 

o` numfw/n "wedding hall" 

o` ga,moj here also: "wedding hall" 

o` numfw/n 01, B*, L, 0102 (=0138), 892, 1010, pc, 

Tis, WH, NA 25 , Gre, Weiss, Bal 

o` a;gamoj C 

(error, "unmarried, single" possibly from the preceding avgaqou,j) 

B (line 19 A, p. 1265): o` numfw/n is left unenhanced and o` ga,moj is written in 

the right margin in uncial script, "prima ut vdtr manu" acc. to Tischendorf. o` 

numfw/n is labeled by a vertical wave above the word and the same wave is 

written above o` ga,moj in the margin. 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 22:8 to,te le,gei toi/j dou,loij auvtou/\ o` me.n ga,moj e[toimo,j 

evstin( oi` de. keklhme,noi ouvk h=san a;xioi\ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:15 oi` uiòi. tou/ numfw/noj (and parallels Mk 2:19, Lk 5:34) 

D, Latt: oi` uiòi. tou/ numfi,ou 

(in Lk by 124*, in Mk it's safe) 

Some commentators think that o` numfw/n has been conformed to o` ga,moj 

from verse 8 because the meaning of numfw/n has not been understood, 

similarly in 9:15 (so e.g. Weiss). 

On the other hand it has been argued that the equivocal o` ga,moj has been 

changed into o` numfw/n for clarity. 


TVU 303 

NA 27 Matthew 22:13 to,te o` basileu.j ei=pen toi/j diako,noij\ dh,santej 

auvtou/ po,daj kai. cei/raj evkba,lete auvto.n eivj to. sko,toj to. evxw,teron\ 


BYZ Matthew 22:13 to,te ei=pen o` basileu.j toi/j diako,noij\ dh,santej 

auvtou/ po,daj kai. cei/raj a;rate auvto.n kai. evkba,lete eivj to. sko,toj to. 

evxw,teron\ 


Byz C, W, X, D, 0102, 33, Maj, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, L, Q, 085, f1, (f13), 22, 700, 892, pc, 

Lat(aur, f, g 1 , l, vg), Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Did 

ba,lete f13 

to,te ei=pen o` basileu.j toi/j diako,noij\ 

a;rate auvto.n podw/n kai ceirw/n kai. ba,lete auvto.n... 

"Take hold of him by his hands and feet and put him …" 

D, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , h, q, r 1 ), Sy-S, Sy-C, Ir Lat 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:30 kai. to.n avcrei/on dou/lon evkba,lete eivj to. sko,toj to. 

evxw,teron\ evkei/ e;stai o` klauqmo.j kai. o` brugmo.j tw/n ovdo,ntwnÅ 

It is difficult to imagine a cause for these variations. There is no parallel for 

the words. There is no reason for an omission. Possibly the Byzantine reading is a 

conflation of txt and the Western reading? The support is not good for Byz, 

although with W quite early. 

The Western reading omits the binding. Blass thinks that the Western reading 

is original and that it was changed because the unusual Genitive was not 

understood anymore. 




TVU 304 


NA 27 Matthew 22:15 To,te poreuqe,ntej oi` Farisai/oi sumbou,lion e;labon 

o[pwj auvto.n pagideu,swsin evn lo,gw|Å 


652 is f1 from 22:15 to the end of Mt! 

e;labon katV auvtou/ C C1 , D, Q, 0233, f1, 652, 33, pc, bo, mae-2 

e;labon kata. tou/ VIhsou/ C C2 , M, Sy-Pal mss 

B: no umlaut 

In B p. 1265 line 41-42 A, a correction took place. At the end of line 41 after 

the word e;labon, text has been wiped out and a filling sign has been inserted. 

The complete line 42 and the beginning of line 1 B have been erased too. 

Unfortunately nothing of the original can be seen anymore. Tischendorf noted 

this too and said the correction is prima manu. 

It is quite probable though that the scribe wrote katV auvtou/ but noted the 

error shortly thereafter. No other known variant would account for this 

erasure. It could be some other copying error of course. 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 12:14 evxelqo,ntej de. oi` Farisai/oi sumbou,lion e;labon katV 

auvtou/ o[pwj auvto.n avpole,swsinÅ 

NA 27 Mark 3:6 kai. evxelqo,ntej oi` Farisai/oi euvqu.j meta. tw/n 

~Hrw|dianw/n sumbou,lion evdi,doun katV auvtou/ o[pwj auvto.n avpole,swsinÅ 

Typical harmonization. This verse is the beginning of a lection. 


TVU 305 



NA 27 Matthew 22:16 kai. avposte,llousin auvtw/| tou.j maqhta.j auvtw/n meta. 

tw/n ~Hrw|dianw/n le,gontej\ dida,skale( oi;damen o[ti avlhqh.j ei= kai. 

th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ evn avlhqei,a| dida,skeij kai. ouv me,lei soi peri. 

ouvdeno,jÅ ouv ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn( 

le,gontaj 01, B, L, 085, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal 

txt C, D, W, X, D, Q, 0102, 0281 vid , f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

Bois, Gre, Trg mg 

B: no umlaut 

le,gontej participle present active nominative masculine plural 

le,gontaj participle present active accusative masculine plural 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 21:15 ivdo,ntej de. oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j ta. 

qauma,sia a] evpoi,hsen kai. tou.j pai/daj tou.j kra,zontaj evn tw/| ièrw/| 

kai. le,gontaj\ w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d( hvgana,kthsan 

NA 27 Luke 19:14 oi` de. poli/tai auvtou/ evmi,soun auvto.n kai. avpe,steilan 

presbei,an ovpi,sw auvtou/ le,gontej\ ouv qe,lomen tou/ton basileu/sai evfV 

h`ma/jÅ safe! 

NA 27 Acts 13:15 meta. de. th.n avna,gnwsin tou/ no,mou kai. tw/n profhtw/n 

avpe,steilan oi` avrcisuna,gwgoi pro.j auvtou.j le,gontej\ safe! 

NA 27 Acts 16:35 ~Hme,raj de. genome,nhj avpe,steilan oi` strathgoi. tou.j 

ràbdou,couj le,gontej\ avpo,luson tou.j avnqrw,pouj evkei,noujÅ 

le,gontaj D 

le,gontej refers back to kai. avposte,llousin: "And they send …, (indirectly) 

saying," 

le,gontaj is part of the accusative object: "And they send [people] who say," 

Both are possible and make good sense. Difficult to judge. Possibly le,gontaj is 

a conformation to maqhta.j, but Weiss finds this improbable. 


TVU 306 


NA 27 Matthew 22:16 ouv ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn( 

NA 27 Matthew 22:17 eivpe. ou=n h`mi/n ti, soi dokei/\ e;xestin dou/nai kh/nson 

Kai,sari h' ou;È 

omit until h`mi/n: D, pc, it(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , ff 2 , q, r 1 ), Sy-S, bo ms , mae-2 

omit until dokei/: 1424, pc 

Lat(aur, c, f, g 1 , h, l, vg) have the words. 

Note also: 

e;xestin h`mi/n f1, 652, Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:14 ouv ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn( avllV evpV 

avlhqei,aj th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ dida,skeij\ e;xestin dou/nai kh/nson 

Kai,sari h' ou;È dw/men h' mh. dw/menÈ 

NA 27 Luke 20:21 kai. dida,skeij kai. ouv lamba,neij pro,swpon( avllV evpV 

avlhqei,aj th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ dida,skeij\ 22 e;xestin h`ma/j Kai,sari 

fo,ron dou/nai h' ou;È 

The omitted words do not appear in the parallels. It is possible that the words 

have been omitted as a partial harmonization to Mk, Lk. They also appear as 

slightly redundant. 

Note the addition of h`mi/n, which is probably a conformation to Lk from memory. 


TVU 307 



NA 27 Matthew 22:21 le,gousin auvtw/|\ Kai,sarojÅ to,te le,gei auvtoi/j\ 

avpo,dote ou=n ta. Kai,saroj Kai,sari kai. ta. tou/ qeou/ tw/| qew/|Å 

omit 01, B, Sy-P, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt D, L, W, Z, Q, 0102, 0281, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-H, Co 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

22:20 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ 

22:21 le,gousin auvtw/|\ 

to,te le,gei auvtoi/j\ 

The pronoun fits naturally into the sequence. Difficult to judge on internal 

grounds. 


TVU 308 


NA 27 Matthew 22:23 VEn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| prosh/lqon auvtw/| Saddoukai/oi( 

le,gontej mh. ei=nai avna,stasin( kai. evphrw,thsan auvto.n 

BYZ Matthew 22:23 VEn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| prosh/lqon auvtw/| Saddoukai/oi 

oi[ le,gontej mh. ei=nai avna,stasin kai. evphrw,thsan auvto.n 

Saddoukai/oi oi[ 01 C2 , K, L, Q, 0107, 22, 652, 1582, 565, 579, pc, 

Maj-part, Lat, Sy-P, bo, Bal 

oi[ Saddoukai/oi oi[ f13, pc, sa 

oi[ Saddoukai/oi kai. oi[ 1292 

Saddoukai/oi 01*, B, D, M, S, U, W, Z, D, P*, W, 0102, 1, 118, 28, 

33, 157, 892, 1424, Maj-part, Sy-S, Sy-C, Or 

oi[ Saddoukai/oi 700, 788(f13), 1243, mae-2 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

txt came to him some Sadducees, saying there is no resurrection... 

Byz came to him some Sadducees, who say 'There is no resurrection'... 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:18 Kai. e;rcontai Saddoukai/oi pro.j auvto,n( oi[tinej 

le,gousin avna,stasin mh. ei=nai( kai. evphrw,twn auvto.n le,gontej\ 

NA 27 Luke 20:27 proselqo,ntej de, tinej tw/n Saddoukai,wn( 

oi` ÎavntiÐle,gontej avna,stasin mh. ei=nai( evphrw,thsan auvto.n 

oi[tinej le,gousin Y, 713 

omit oi`: 1319, 2372 

Compare: 

NA 27 Acts 23:8 Saddoukai/oi me.n ga.r le,gousin mh. ei=nai avna,stasin mh,te 

a;ggelon mh,te pneu/ma( Farisai/oi de. o`mologou/sin ta. avmfo,teraÅ 

It is possible that the additional oi[ arose as a scribal confusion over the ending 

of Saddoukai/oi, or it has been omitted for that reason. 

The addition could also be a harmonization to Mk, Lk, where the article is safe.

In the context the addition of oi[ makes better sense because they ask another 

question after that statement: 

"came to him some Sadducees, saying there is no resurrection, 

and they asked him a question, saying, ..." 

Better would be: 

"came to him some Sadducees, who say 'There is no resurrection', 

and they asked him a question, saying, ..." 

In Mt this would be the only explanation of this kind. 




TVU 309 

NA 27 Matthew 22:30 evn ga.r th/| avnasta,sei ou;te gamou/sin ou;te 

gami,zontai( avllV w`j a;ggeloi evn tw/| ouvranw/| eivsinÅ 

BYZ Matthew 22:30 evn ga.r th/| avnasta,sei ou;te gamou/sin ou;te 

evkgami,zontai( avllV w`j a;ggeloi tou/ qeou/ evn ouvranw/| eivsin 

Byz 01, L, W, f13, 33, 892, 1241, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal 

a;ggeloi tou/ qeou/ W, D, 0102, 0161, 565, 579, Maj 

a;ggeloi qeou/ 01, L, S, f13, 28, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 

1292, 1424, pc, 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), Sy-H, Sy-P, bo, Gre, SBL 

txt B, D, E*, Q, 0197, 0233, f1, 22, 700, 

it, Sy-S, Sy-C, vg mss , sa, mae-2, arm, geo, Or, Sev Antioch 

oi` a;ggeloi Q, f1, 22, Or 

Lacuna: C, 1582 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:25 o[tan ga.r evk nekrw/n avnastw/sin ou;te gamou/sin ou;te 

gami,zontai( avllV eivsi.n w`j a;ggeloi evn toi/j ouvranoi/jÅ 

a;ggeloi qeou/ … 69, 472, pc 

a;ggeloi qeou/ oi` … f13, 1071, pc 

a;ggeloi tou/ qeou/ … 33 

NA 27 Luke 20:36 ouvde. ga.r avpoqanei/n e;ti du,nantai( ivsa,ggeloi ga,r eivsin 

kai. uiòi, eivsin qeou/ th/j avnasta,sewj uiòi. o;ntejÅ 

ivsa,ggeloj = like or equal to an angel 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:49 evxeleu,sontai oi` a;ggeloi kai. avforiou/sin tou.j 

ponhrou.j evk me,sou tw/n dikai,wn 

oi` a;ggeloi tou/ qeou/ C, 1424, 713 

NA 27 Luke 2:9 kai. a;ggeloj kuri,ou evpe,sth auvtoi/j kai. do,xa kuri,ou 

perie,lamyen auvtou,j( kai. evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,ganÅ 

a;ggeloj qeou/ 01* 

NA 27 Luke 12:8 o`mologh,sei evn auvtw/| e;mprosqen tw/n avgge,lwn tou/ qeou/\

NA 27 Luke 12:9 avparnhqh,setai evnw,pion tw/n avgge,lwn tou/ qeou/Å 

NA 27 Luke 15:10 cara. evnw,pion tw/n avgge,lwn tou/ qeou/ 

NA 27 Luke 22:43 ÎÎw;fqh de. auvtw/| a;ggeloj avpV ouvranou/ evniscu,wn auvto,nÅ 

a;ggeloj kuri,ou 1424 

NA 27 John 1:51 kai. tou.j avgge,louj tou/ qeou/ avnabai,nontaj 

Also 20 times in the LXX. 

Note also Mt 25:31 below. 

Severus of Antioch (first half of the 6 th CE) quotes the verse twice in a letter 

to Eupraxius the Chamberlain: 

"as the Lord himself actually said in a place in the gospel, 'In the resurrection there is no 

marriage, nor yet are they joined in marriage, but they will be as the angels in heaven.'" 

"The fact again that he who was born was circumcised on the eighth day shows clearly that 

that circumcision is a type of the life of impassibility in which we truly live, not the life 

that is spent by those who are born to destruction; 'for in the resurrection there is no 

marriage, nor yet persons given in marriage, but they are as the angels in heaven.'" 

and additionally once in the "22nd letter of the 2 nd book" to Solon, bishop of 

Isauria: "For those whose throat gapes for sensual enjoyment, being involved in the same 

empty-mindedness as those men, make use of senseless fatuities and say, «For what 

purpose then shall we make use of teeth, or the other members by which the perception of 

the things that please is received?» To these it is obvious to answer that, since the soul 

receives the body in perfection at the time of the resurrection, those who rise not being 

devoid of genital members, and this though the book of the gospel cries, 'In the 

resurrection they marry not, nor are given in marriage, but they are as the angels that are 

in heaven'" 

[compare E.W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 14, p. 46, 53, 187] 

tou/ qeou/ would be a natural addition. This happens several times, see above, 

even in the Markan parallel. It is not likely to be omitted. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 

133) notes that also angels of the devil exist (compare Mt 25:41 ... to. pu/r to. 

aivw,nion to. h`toimasme,non tw/| diabo,lw| kai. toi/j avgge,loij auvtou/). 

That the omission is a harmonization to Mk (so Hoskier) is very improbable. 

a;ggeloj appears 20 times in Mt, but never with the attribute tou/ qeou/. The 

only attribute Mt uses is kuri,ou. 


TVU 310 


NA 27 Matthew 22:32 evgw, eivmi o` qeo.j VAbraa.m kai. o` qeo.j VIsaa.k kai. o` 

qeo.j VIakw,bÈ ouvk e;stin Îo`Ð qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwnÅ 

BYZ Matthew 22:32 VEgw, eivmi o` qeo.j VAbraa.m kai. o` qeo.j VIsaa.k kai. o` 

qeo.j VIakw,b ouvk e;stin o` qeo.j qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn 

o` qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn B, L, G, D, f1, 33, 157*, 372, pc 

qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn 01, D, W, 28, 1424*, Bois, Tis, Bal 

one of these: Lat, bo, sa, Sy-S, Sy-C 

o` qeo.j qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn Q, 0102(=0138), f13, 565, 579, 700, 

892, Maj, Sy-H, arm, geo 2A , Gre 

o` qeo.j qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. qeo.j zw,ntwn 157, g 1 , vg ms 


B: umlaut! (line 30 C, p. 1265) VIakw,bÈ ouvk e;stin o` qeo.j 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:27 ouvk e;stin qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn\ 

BYZ Mark 12:27 ouvk e;stin o` qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. qeo.j zw,ntwn\ 

qeo.j nekrw/n avlla B, D, K, L, M C , U, W, D, P, 28, 579, 892, 

1071, 2542, pc, Lat 

o` qeo.j nekrw/n avlla 01, A, C, F, Y, f1, 157*, 565, 700, 1424 

o` qeo.j qeo.j nekrw/n avlla Q, f13, 33, pc, Sy-S 

o` qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. qeo.j G, 157 C , Maj, Sy-H 

o` qeo.j qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. qeo.j M*, 1241 

NA 27 Luke 20:38 qeo.j de. ouvk e;stin nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn( 

o` qeo.j de. W, 124, pc 

o` de qeo.j Q, pc 

ouvk e;stin nekrw/n qeo.j 157 

qeo.j nekrw/n ouvk e;stin D, a, sa, bo mss 

Compare: 

NA 27 Hebrews 11:16 dio. ouvk evpaiscu,netai auvtou.j o` qeo.j qeo.j 

evpikalei/sqai auvtw/n\ h`toi,masen ga.r auvtoi/j po,linÅ

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 19:6 w[ste ouvke,ti eivsi.n du,o avlla. sa.rx mi,aÅ o] ou=n o` qeo.j 

sune,zeuxen a;nqrwpoj mh. cwrize,twÅ 

omit o`: f13 

NA 27 Mark 10:9 o] ou=n o` qeo.j sune,zeuxen a;nqrwpoj mh. cwrize,twÅ 

omit o`: A, G 

NA 27 Mark 10:18 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ ouvdei.j 

avgaqo.j eiv mh. ei-j o` qeo,jÅ 

omit o`: D 

NA 27 Luke 5:21 ti,j du,natai a`marti,aj avfei/nai eiv mh. mo,noj o` qeo,jÈ 

omit o`: D* 

NA 27 Luke 18:19 ei=pen de. auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ ouvdei.j 

avgaqo.j eiv mh. ei-j o` qeo,jÅ 

omit o`: 01*, B* 

Regarding ouvk e;stin qeo,j compare: 

LXX Psalm 13:1 ei=pen a;frwn evn kardi,a| auvtou/ ouvk e;stin qeo,j 

NA 27 Matthew 13:57 ouvk e;stin profh,thj a;timoj eiv mh. evn th/| patri,di 

Mt uses qeo.j almost always with the article (80-90%). Especially the nominative 

form "qeo.j" is always used with the article (5 times). The same is true for Mk, 

Lk. As can be seen above the article is omitted accidentally at times. 

In Mt have it: B, L, 892 Q, f1, 33 

In Mt have not: 01, D 

In Mk have it: 01, Y, Q, f1, 33 

In Mk have not: B, L, 892 D 

In Lk the reading without the article is almost safe, only Q, W, 124 read the 

article. 

The witnesses supporting the reading without the article show also variation 

with the article at other positions (especially D, see above). This weakens their 

support.

The problem that gave rise to the variants here is that one can take o` qeo,j as 

subject ("Not is the God …"). If one takes o` qeo,j as subject, then ouvk e;stin o` 

qeo.j nekrw/n is incomplete. To overcome this, one could either add a second 

qeo.j, or remove the article to make it more clear that e;stin ("he is") is the 

implicite subject. 

The same thing happened in Mk. 

Externally the double qeo.j is already ruled out by support almost. 


Brackets: Rating: 1? = remove brackets in NA.

TVU 311 



NA 27 Matthew 22:35 kai. evphrw,thsen ei-j evx auvtw/n Înomiko.jÐ peira,zwn 

auvto,n\ 

BYZ Matthew 22:35 kai. evphrw,thsen ei-j evx auvtw/n nomiko.j peira,zwn 

auvto,n kai. le,gwn 

nomiko,j tij E*, F, G, H, 0233, 2, 372, 713, pc (from Lk?) 

nomiko.j evx auvtw/n 828 

omit: f1, e (5 th CE), 1780, Sy-S, arm, Or, Bois 

(652, Sy-C have the word) 

omit evx auvtw/n: 124 (=f13) 

652 (f1) seems to have nomiko.j here according to R. Champlin (Family Pi in 

Matthew, 1964, Studies and Documents 24). At least he is not mentioning the 

omission. 1780 is close to 652. Should be checked again. 1582 is unfortunately 

lacking here due to one missing folio. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:28 Kai. proselqw.n ei-j tw/n grammate,wn 

NA 27 Luke 10:25 Kai. ivdou. nomiko,j tij avne,sth evkpeira,zwn auvto.n le,gwn\ 


NA 27 Matthew 22:34 Oi` de. Farisai/oi avkou,santej o[ti evfi,mwsen tou.j 

Saddoukai,ouj sunh,cqhsan evpi. to. auvto,( 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Luke 7:30 oi` de. Farisai/oi kai. oi` nomikoi. 

NA 27 Luke 11:45 VApokriqei.j de, tij tw/n nomikw/n 

NA 27 Luke 11:46 o` de. ei=pen\ kai. u`mi/n toi/j nomikoi/j ouvai,( 

NA 27 Luke 11:52 Ouvai. u`mi/n toi/j nomikoi/j( 

NA 27 Luke 14:3 VIhsou/j ei=pen pro.j tou.j nomikou.j kai. Farisai,ouj

NA 27 Luke 20:9 :Hrxato de. pro.j to.n lao.n le,gein th.n parabolh.n 

tau,thn\ a;nqrwpo,j ÎtijÐ evfu,teusen avmpelw/na kai. evxe,deto auvto.n 

gewrgoi/j kai. avpedh,mhsen cro,nouj i`kanou,jÅ 

omit 01, B, (C, D), L, R, Y, f1, 33, 579, 892, 1424, Maj, it, WH 

txt A, W, Q, f13, 157, 1071, 1241, 2542, al, vg St , Sy, TR 

nomiko,j is a Lukan word and appears in Mt only here. Zahn (Comm. Mat.) thinks 

that Matthew used nomiko,j because the question concerns the law. 

The support for the omission is very strange. If nomiko,j is really an addition, 

then it must be extremely early. The consequence would be that f1 (almost) 

alone can preserve the original. It might be noted that the verse is the 

beginning of a Sunday lection. The same is true for Lk 10:25. Thus the story was 

well known and a harmonization is likely to occur. 

It is also possible that scribes had a problem with the fact that first it is said 

"one of them" = "one of the Pharisees" (see verse 34) and then it is a lawyer 

(and not a Pharisee?). 

Streeter ("Four Gospels", p. 320) accepts the omission as original. So do Burkitt 

and Blass. 


difficult, brackets ok.

TVU 312 

NA 27 Matthew 22:36 dida,skale( poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw/| no,mw|È 

NA 27 Matthew 22:38 au[th evsti.n h` mega,lh kai. prw,th evntolh,Å 

BYZ Matthew 22:36 Dida,skale poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw/| no,mw| 

BYZ Matthew 22:38 au[th evsti.n prw,th kai. mega,lh evntolh, 


From Legg and Swanson: 

verse 36: Minority reading 

h` mega,lh Conj. (Heikel-Helsingfors) 

mei,zwn Q, d, vg mss ("maius"), geo 

maximum h, r 2 , aeth 

prw,th 1093 

mega,lh kai. prw,th vg ms , Sy-C 

poi,a evntolh. evn tw/| no,mw| mega,lhÈ D, pc 


B: no umlaut 

verse 38: Majority reading 

h` mega,lh kai. prw,th 01, B, Z, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892 

h` mega,lh kai. h` prw,th L 

h` prw,th kai. h` mega,lh W 

mega,lh kai. prw,th D, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, geo 

h` prw,th kai. mega,lh O, D, S, F, 0107, 0233, 565, pc, mae-1 

prw,th kai. mega,lh K, P, 0102, 157, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj, d, f, q, Sy-H 


B: umlaut! (p. 1266 A 7 L) dianoi,a| sou\ 38 au[th evsti.n h` mega,lh 

Compare for Q: 

NA 27 Mark 12:31 deute,ra au[th\ avgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on sou w`j seauto,nÅ 

mei,zwn tou,twn a;llh evntolh. ouvk e;stinÅ

The problem here is that the translation of txt in verse 36 would be: 

"which commandment in the law is great?" 

but intended is: 

"which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 

This is the meaning of the Q reading in verse 36 (mei,zwn often means 

"greatest", not just "greater"). But according to BDAG and BDF mega,lh alone 

can also mean "greatest". 

Heikel-Helsingfors suggests that very early the h` fell out. With the addition of 

the article this then would mean "what is the big one?". 

Compare: 

I.A. Heikel-Helsingfors "Konjekturen zu einigen Stellen des neutestamentlichen 

Textes" TSK 106 (134/35) 314-17 


TVU 313 


NA 27 Matthew 22:37 o` de. e;fh auvtw/|\ avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n 

sou evn o[lh| th/| kardi,a| sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| yuch/| sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| 

dianoi,a| sou\ 

BYZ Matthew 22:37 o` de. VIhsou/j e;fh auvtw/|( VAgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n 

sou( evn o[lh| kardi,a| sou( kai. evn o[lh| yuch/| sou( kai. evn o[lh| th/| 

dianoi,a| souÅ 


Byz 01*, B, W, Q, 0102, 0107, 0161, 0233, f13, 28, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, 

1342, 2542, Maj-part[E, F, G, H, U, V, G, D], WH, Robinson 

txt 01 C2 , D, L, Z, 33, f1, 565, 892, 1424, Maj-part[K, P, M, S, Y], 

TR, NA 25 , Weiss 

omit th/| before yuch/|: 

Byz B, W, Q, 0102, 0107, 0233, 28, 579, 700, 1342, 2542, 

Maj-part[E, F, G, H, U, G, D], Robinson 

txt 01, D, L, Z, f1, f13, 157, 565, 892, 1071, 1424, 

Maj-part[K, P, M, S, Y], TR, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

(33 omits due to h.t.) 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:30 kai. avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou 

evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j 

dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj souÅ 

omit th/j: B, D*, X, f13, pc, WH 

txt 01, A, D C , L, W, D, Q, Y, f1, 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

NA 25 , Weiss, WH mg

NA 27 Mark 12:33 kai. to. avgapa/n auvto.n evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj kai. evx o[lhj 

th/j sune,sewj kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj kai. to. avgapa/n to.n plhsi,on w`j 

eàuto.n perisso,tero,n evstin pa,ntwn tw/n o`lokautwma,twn kai. qusiw/nÅ 

omit th/j: B, U, X, Y, pc, WH 

txt 01, A, D C , L, W, D, Q, f1, 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, 

Maj, NA 25 , Weiss, WH mg 

NA 27 Luke 10:27 avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou evx o[lhj Îth/jÐ kardi,aj 

sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| yuch/| sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| ivscu,i? sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| 

dianoi,a| sou( kai. to.n plhsi,on sou w`j seauto,nÅ 

omit th/j: P75, B, X, 070, (f1), 472, L844, (L2211), pc, WH 

evn o[lh| kardi,a| f1, L2211 

txt 01, A, C, (D), L, W, Q, Y, f13, 33, 579, 700, Maj, 

NA 25 , Weiss, WH mg 

evn o[lh| th/| kardi,a| D, 157 

LXX: 

LXX Deuteronomy 6:5 kai. avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou evx o[lhj th/j 

kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j duna,mew,j 

sou for kardi,aj, read by A, B C has: dianoi,aj (Rahlfs) 

omit th/j: 

Mt 01*, B, W, Q, f13, 28, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, 2542, 

Maj-part[E, F, G, H, U, V, G, D], WH 

Mk B, D*, X, f13, pc, WH 

Mk 12:33 B, U, X, Y, pc, WH 

Lk P75, B, X, 070, (f1), 472, L844, (L2211), pc, WH 

Difficult problem. 

It appears possible that the omission is at least in part accidental due to h.t.: 

o[lh| th/| or o[lhj th/j. 

On the other hand the strong support for the omission seems to suggest that at 

least in one of the three Gospels the reading without the article is original and 

the other omissions are harmonizations. The question then is which Gospel(s) 

read without the article. 

Mt 22:35-40 and Lk 10:25-37 were Sunday lections in the Synaxarion.

It is only B (WH) that omits the article in all three Gospels. It is possible that 

this is correct throughout. The addition of the article then is a harmonization to 

the LXX. 

The support in Mt and Mk is not coherent. 

The harmonization to Mt by f1 in Lk is interesting, because it supports the 

reading without the article in Mt. 

Compare: 

Paul Foster "Why did Matthew get the Shema wrong? A study of Mt 22:37" 

JBL 122 (2003) 309-333 


TVU 314 



NA 27 Matthew 22:39 deute,ra de. o`moi,a auvth/|\ avgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on sou 

w`j seauto,nÅ 

omit 01*, B, pc, sa ms , bo mss , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

deute,ra o`moi,wj B 

txt 01 C2 , D, L, W, Z, Q, 0102, 0107, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Latt, Sy-H, sa mss , mae, bo 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 12:31 deute,ra au[th\ avgaph,seij … 

insert de.: 579 

BYZ Mark 12:31 kai. deute,ra o`moi,a( au[th\ avgaph,seij … 

omit kai. and insert de.: D, G, Q, 33, 565, 700 

Again one of those 01, B agreements. There is no reason for an omission. 


TVU 315 



e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n souÈ 


e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n sou 

Byz K, P, W, D, 0102, f1, 13, 33, 700, 1342, Maj, 

Lat(a, aur, c, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , l, vg), mae-1+2, Sy-P, arm 

txt 01, B, D, G, L, U, Z, G, Q, f13, 22, 579, 892, al, 

it(b, d, e, h, q, r 1 ), Sy-C, Sy-H, Co 

Sy-S is illegible here (acc. to Burkitt). 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:36 e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n souÅ 

BYZ Mark 12:36 e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n sou 

Byz 01, A, L, D, Q, Y, 087, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, arm 

txt B, D, W, 28, 2542, Sy-S, Co, geo 

NA 27 Luke 20:43 

e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n souÅ 

u`poka,tw D, it, Sy-C, Sy-P 

Source: 

LXX Psalm 109:1 

e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n sou 

Compare: 

NA 27 Acts 2:35 e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n souÅ 

The change from u`poka,tw to u`popo,dion could be a harmonization to Mk or Lk, 

the other way round it could be a harmonization to the LXX. There may also be 

stylistic or idiomatic reasons involved. 




TVU 316 


NA 27 Matthew 22:46 kai. ouvdei.j evdu,nato avpokriqh/nai auvtw/| lo,gon ouvde. 

evto,lmhse,n tij avpV evkei,nhj th/j h`me,raj evperwth/sai auvto.n ouvke,tiÅ 

w[raj D, W, f1, 1506, pc, a, d, q, vg ms , Sy-S, Sy-C, bo mss , Or 

22 has txt. 


B: no umlaut 

Compare variant Mt 18:1 for a complete list of occurrences. 

w[ra and h`me,ra are sometimes interchanged. 


TVU 317 

NA 27 Matthew 23:3 pa,nta ou=n o[sa eva.n ei;pwsin u`mi/n 

poih,sate kai. threi/te( kata. de. ta. e;rga auvtw/n mh. poiei/te\ le,gousin 

ga.r kai. ouv poiou/sinÅ 

BYZ Matthew 23:3 pa,nta ou=n o[sa eva.n ei;pwsin u`mi/n 

threi/n threi/te kai. poiei/te\ kata. de. ta. e;rga auvtw/n mh. poiei/te\ 

le,gousin ga.r kai. ouv poiou/sin 

T&T #58 

threi/n threi/te kai. poiei/te W, D, 0102, f13, 33, 565, 579, Maj, 

q, Sy-P, Sy-H 

threi/n threi/te F, pc 18 

threi/n threi/te kai. fula,ssete pc 8 

threi/n threi/te kai. poiei/n poiei/te pc 2 

poiei/n poiei/te kai. threi/te 700, pc 8 

poiei/n poiei/te G, pc 12 

poih,sate kai. threi/te 01 C2 , B, L, Z, Q, 0281, 124(f13), 22, 892, Co 

poih,sate 01*, Sy-S, mae-2 

poiei/te kai. threi/te D, f1, 652, 2597, aur, d 

threi/te kai. poiei/te 372, 2737, pc 7 , Lat, Ir lat 

avkou,ete kai. poiei/te Sy-C 


B: umlaut! (line 2 B, p. 1266) ei;pwsin u`mi/n poih,sate kai. 

"all, then, whatever they say to you to observe, observe and do" 

"all, then, whatever they say to you, do and observe" 

The omission of kai. threi/te by G and 01* is probably due to homoioarcton 

(KAITH - KATA). The Byzantine text is probably a smoothing 

a) of structure (adding threi/n, change order threi/te kai. poiei/te) 

b) of tense (changing poih,sate to poiei/te, present, as the other verbs in the 

verse, poiei/te even appears later in the verse.) 


TVU 318 



NA 27 Matthew 23:4 desmeu,ousin de. forti,a bare,a Îkai. dusba,staktaÐ kai. 

evpitiqe,asin evpi. tou.j w;mouj tw/n avnqrw,pwn( auvtoi. de. tw/| daktu,lw| 

auvtw/n ouv qe,lousin kinh/sai auvta,Å 

BYZ Matthew 23:4 desmeu,ousin ga.r forti,a bare,a kai. dusba,stakta kai. 

evpitiqe,asin evpi. tou.j w;mouj tw/n avnqrw,pwn tw/| de. daktu,lw| 

auvtw/n ouv qe,lousin kinh/sai auvta, 

dusba,staktoj = "hard to carry" 

omit kai. dusba,stakta 

(01), L, f1, 892, pc, 

it(a, b, e, ff 2 , h), Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, bo, mae-2, Or 

WH, NA 25 , Gre, Bois, Tis, Bal, SBL 

WH have kai. dusba,stakta in the margin 

mega,la bare,a 01 

omit bare,a kai. 700, pc 

txt B, D, K, P, W, D, Q, 0102, 0107, f13, 22, 33, 157, 579, Maj, 

Lat(aur, c, d, f, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg), Sy-H, sa, Weiss 

652 (f1) does not omit here according to R. Champlin (Family Pi in Matthew, 

1964, Studies and Documents 24). At least he is not mentioning it. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:46 o` de. ei=pen\ kai. u`mi/n toi/j nomikoi/j ouvai,( o[ti forti,zete 

tou.j avnqrw,pouj forti,a dusba,stakta( kai. auvtoi. e`ni. tw/n daktu,lwn 

u`mw/n ouv prosyau,ete toi/j forti,oijÅ 

Compare also: 

LXX Proverbs 27:3 baru. li,qoj kai. dusba,stakton a;mmoj ovrgh. de. a;fronoj 

barute,ra avmfote,rwn

B. Metzger wants the term to be removed from the text in a minority vote in his 

commentary. The absence of the term is indeed difficult to explain in so many 

witnesses. 

Possibly it was accidentally omitted by an oversight from KAI to KAI (so Weiss). 

On the other hand a partial harmonization to Lk is also possible. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has "forti,a ..." indicating with the dots that something unknown 

was present here. This is in contrast to their earlier IQP text which had 

dusba,stakta present, but labeled as having differences in wording. 

Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005) has forti,a bare,a kai. ti,qete … 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 96) has forti,a bare,a kai. evpitiqe,asin as safe. 

He calls dusba,staktoj "Literatur-Griechisch" and Lukan. 


TVU 319 


NA 27 Matthew 23:4 desmeu,ousin de. forti,a bare,a Îkai. dusba,staktaÐ kai. 

evpitiqe,asin evpi. tou.j w;mouj tw/n avnqrw,pwn( auvtoi. de. tw/| daktu,lw| 

auvtw/n ouv qe,lousin kinh/sai auvta,Å 

BYZ Matthew 23:4 desmeu,ousin ga.r forti,a bare,a kai. dusba,stakta kai. 

evpitiqe,asin evpi. tou.j w;mouj tw/n avnqrw,pwn tw/| de. daktu,lw| 

auvtw/n ouv qe,lousin kinh/sai auvta, 

Byz W, D, Q, 0102, f1, 652, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, Gre, Bois 

txt 01, B, D, L, 33, 157, 892, 1010, pc, d, Sy-S, (Sy-C), Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Ir Lat 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:46 o` de. ei=pen\ kai. u`mi/n toi/j nomikoi/j ouvai,( o[ti forti,zete 

tou.j avnqrw,pouj forti,a dusba,stakta( kai. auvtoi. e`ni. tw/n daktu,lwn 

u`mw/n ouv prosyau,ete toi/j forti,oijÅ 

The omission is difficult to explain. More probably auvtoi. has been added to 

supply a direct subject, because the previous subject was 'men'. Internally this 

would be clearly secondary. Externally Q, f1 and Lat are good witnesses. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has auvtoi. safe for Q. So also Harnack. 




TVU 320 

NA 27 Matthew 23:5 platu,nousin ga.r ta. fulakth,ria auvtw/n kai. 

megalu,nousin ta. kra,speda( 

BYZ Matthew 23:5 platu,nousin de. ta. fulakth,ria auvtw/n kai. 

megalu,nousin ta. kra,speda tw/n i`mati,wn auvtw/n 

"for they make their phylacteries broad and they make long the fringes [of their garments]." 

fulakth,ria were strips of parchment with texts from the Law written on them, used as 

amulets. 

Byz L, W, 0102, 0107, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

f, ff 2 , h, q, vg ms , Sy, bo, mae-2, arm, Basil(4 th CE) 

tw/n i`mati,wn L, D, pc 

auvtw/n b, c, vg mss3 , sa, aeth (all acc. to Tis/Legg) 

txt 01, B, D, Q, f1, 652, 22, pc, Lat(a, aur, d, e, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), sa, mae-1 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut (not sure though, there is an umlaut on the line before (p. 1266 B 

19 L, that ends with ta. kra,. Possibly this variant is meant?) 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 9:20 Kai. ivdou. gunh. ai`morroou/sa dw,deka e;th proselqou/sa 

o;pisqen h[yato tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/\ 21 e;legen ga.r evn 

eàuth/|\ eva.n mo,non a[ywmai tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/ swqh,somaiÅ 

tou/ kraspe,dou f13 

tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou 157 

NA 27 Matthew 14:36 mo,non a[ywntai tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/\ 

NA 27 Mark 6:56 i[na ka'n tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/ a[ywntai\ 

NA 27 Luke 8:44 h[yato tou/ kraspe,dou tou/ i`mati,ou auvtou/ 

This is a natural addition (compare Mt 9:20). All 4 other cases of ta. kra,speda 

have it without omission. So there is no explanation why it should have been 

omitted only in this case. It is an addition from customary usage. 


TVU 321 


NA 27 Matthew 23:8 u`mei/j de. mh. klhqh/te ràbbi,\ ei-j ga,r evstin u`mw/n o` 

dida,skaloj( pa,ntej de. u`mei/j avdelfoi, evsteÅ 

BYZ Matthew 23:8 u`mei/j de. mh. klhqh/te ~Rabbi,\ ei-j ga,r evstin u`mw/n o` 

kaqhghth,j( o` Cristo.j\ pa,ntej de. u`mei/j avdelfoi, evste 

kaqhghth,jÆdida,skaloj 

Byz 01* ,C2 , D, K, P, L, (W), D, Q, 0102, 0107, f1, f13, 700, Maj, Basil(4 th CE) 

txt 01 C1 , B, 33, 517, 565, 892*, pc, Co, Cl, Or 

dida,skaloj Cristo.j U 

ràbbi, Sy-C, Sy-P 

add o` Cristo.j 

Byz G, D, S, 0102, f13, 700, 892 C , Maj, Sy-C, Sy-H** 

txt 01, B, D, K, P, L, W, Q, f1, 124, 788(=f13), 22, 33, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co, Basil(4 th CE) 

add deus aur 

add qui in caelis est g 1 

892: The word dida,skaloj is labeled in the text (triplet sign) and the Byz 

words have been added in the margin. 

Lacuna: C, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Compare the following verses: 

NA 27 Matthew 23:9-10 kai. pate,ra mh. kale,shte u`mw/n evpi. th/j gh/j( 

ei-j ga,r evstin u`mw/n o` path.r o` ouvra,niojÅ 

10 mhde. klhqh/te kaqhghtai,( o[ti kaqhghth.j u`mw/n evstin 

ei-j o` Cristo,jÅ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 John 1:38 ràbbi,( o] le,getai meqermhneuo,menon dida,skale( 

NA 27 John 3:2 ràbbi,( oi;damen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evlh,luqaj dida,skaloj\ 

The Byzantine reading is very possibly inspired from the immediately following 

verses. There is no reason for the change to dida,skaloj. 

On the other hand, the support for dida,skaloj is quite slim. Some dida,skale 

addresses appear 18, 30 and 38 verses before. kaqhghth,j appears only here in 

the Greek Bible. Note also the changes from evpista,ta to dida,skale in Lk 5:5;

8:24; 8:45; 9:33; 9:49 (see Lk 5:5). It is possible that occurrences of the rare 

forms evpista,ta and kaqhghth,j have been conformed to the more normal 

dida,skaloj. 

Compare Jo 1:38, dida,skaloj seems to be the regular translation of ràbbi,. So 

it would be only natural here too to use dida,skaloj in relation to ràbbi,. 

kaqhghth,j: 


add o` Cristo.j: 


TVU 322 



NA 27 Matthew 23:10 mhde. klhqh/te kaqhghtai,( 

o[ti kaqhghth.j u`mw/n evstin ei-j o` Cristo,jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 23:10 mhde. klhqh/te kaqhghtai, 

ei-j ga.r u`mw/n evstin o` kaqhghth.j o` Cristo,j 

o[ti kaqhghth.j u`mw/n o` Cristo,j 

1, 118, 205, 209, 700, pc 

o[ti kaqhghth.j u`mw/n evstin o` Cristo,j 

Q, 652, 1582, 124, 788(=f13), pc, a, d(!), e, r 1 , Sy-S, Sy-C 

The remainder of f13 and 22 read Byz. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 


NA 27 Matthew 23:8 u`mei/j de. mh. klhqh/te ràbbi,\ 

ei-j ga,r evstin u`mw/n o` dida,skaloj( pa,ntej de. u`mei/j avdelfoi, evsteÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 23:9 kai. pate,ra mh. kale,shte u`mw/n evpi. th/j gh/j( 

ei-j ga,r evstin u`mw/n o` path.r o` ouvra,niojÅ 

Compare also: 

LXX 2 Maccabees 10:28 oi` de. kaqhgemo,na tw/n avgw,nwn tatto,menoi to.n 

qumo,n "but the leaders of the opposition…" 

Here the meaning is more that of a leader and not so much of a teacher. 

Difficult. 

The Byzantine reading is a harmonization to the previous verses. It is possible 

that the Caesarean reading is the original and all others are attempts to 

harmonize it with the previous verses.

kaqhghth.j appears only here in the NT. 

Robertson in his Wordpictures writes: 

Masters (kathêgêtai). This word occurs here only in the N.T. It is found in the papyri for 

teacher (Latin, doctor). It is the modern Greek word for professor. "While didaskalos 

represents Rab, kathêgêtes stands for the more honorable Rabban, -bôn" (McNeile). Dalman 

(Words of Jesus, p. 340) suggests that the same Aramaic word may be translated by either 

didaskalos or kathêgêtes. 


TVU 323 

NA 27 Matthew 23:14 - 

BYZ Matthew 23:14 Ouvai. de, u`mi/n( grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi u`pokritai,( 

o[ti katesqi,ete ta.j oivki,aj tw/n chrw/n( kai. profa,sei makra. 

proseuco,menoi\ dia. tou/to lh,yesqe perisso,teron kri,maÅ 

"Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye eat up the houses of the widows, and for 

a pretence make long prayers, because of this ye shall receive more abundant judgment." 

Byz W, Y, D, 0102, 0107, 0233, f13, 22, 28, 157, 565, 579, 700, 892 C , 1071, 

1241, 1424, Maj, it(b, c, f, ff 2 , h, l, r 1 , vg mss ), 

Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal mss , bo pt 

txt 01, B, D, L, Z, Q, f1, 33, 892*, pc, Lat(a, aur, d, e, ff 1 , g 1 , vg), 

Sy-S, Sy-Pal ms , sa, mae-1+2, bo pt , arm, geo, Or, Eus 

892: The words have been added in the margin by a later hand. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Note also verse order: 

verse 13 Ouvai. ... eivselqei/n 

verse 14 Ouvai. ... kri,ma 

13 - 14 0233, f13, 2 C , pc, it, Sy-C, Sy-Pal mss , bo mss , 

Vogels, Weiss, UBS, NA 27 (all in apparatus) 

14 - 13 W, Y, D, 0102, 0107, 579, 700, 892 C , Maj, f, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt , 

TR, von Soden, WH, Robinson, Trg (WH in apparatus) 

UBS, NA 27 note both orders. 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 12:40 oi` katesqi,ontej ta.j oivki,aj tw/n chrw/n kai. profa,sei 

makra. proseuco,menoi\ ou-toi lh,myontai perisso,teron kri,maÅ 

NA 27 Luke 20:47 oi] katesqi,ousin ta.j oivki,aj tw/n chrw/n kai. profa,sei 

makra. proseu,contai\ ou-toi lh,myontai perisso,teron kri,maÅ 

The support for the verse is not very good. Also it appears at different places. 

This is a strong indication for an interpolation. The Mk/Lk parallels of the verse 

are very similar, but not identical. The Matthean o[ti katesqi,ete could be a

conformation to immediate context, but for the change to dia. tou/to lh,yesqe 

is no immediate reason discernible. 

On the other hand there is of course the possibility of omission due to h.t. 

(OUAI - OUAI). In that case then, it is obvious that the verse could have been 

added at the wrong place accidentally later. 

It is interesting to note that NA 27 adds the verse after verse 13 in the 

apparatus and not after verse 12. Robinson notes that the NA verse order is 

that of the Elzevir TR (European continent standard) and the verse order of the 

Majority text is that of Stephens (England/USA standard). 


Order in apparatus: Rating: 1? 



TVU 324 

NA 27 Matthew 23:19 tufloi,( ti, ga.r mei/zon( to. dw/ron h' to. qusiasth,rion 

to. a`gia,zon to. dw/ronÈ 

BYZ Matthew 23:19 mwroi. kai. tufloi, ti, ga.r mei/zon to. dw/ron h' to. 

qusiasth,rion to. a`gia,zon to. dw/ron 

Byz B, C, W, D, 0102, f13, 22, 33, 700, Maj, 

c, f, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal ms , Co, arm, WH mg 

txt 01, D, L, Z, Q, f1, 892, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, mae-2, WH, NA 25 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 23:17 mwroi. kai. tufloi,( ti,j ga.r mei,zwn evsti,n( o` cruso.j 

h' o` nao.j o` a`gia,saj to.n cruso,nÈ 

Clear harmonization to immediate context, verse 17 (so Weiss). 


TVU 325 



NA 27 Matthew 23:23 tau/ta Îde.Ð e;dei poih/sai kavkei/na mh. avfie,naiÅ 

avfei/nai 01, B, L, 892, pc, WH, NA 25 , Trg, Tis, Bal 

txt avfie,nai C, D, W, Q, 0102, f1, f13, 33, 700, Maj, Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

avfie,nai infinitive present active 

avfei/nai infinitive aorist passive 

poih/sai infinitive aorist active 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:42 tau/ta de. e;dei poih/sai kavkei/na mh. parei/naiÅ 

BYZ Luke 11:42 tau/ta e;dei poih/sai kavkei/na mh. avfie,nai 

avfie,nai B C2 , C, W, Q, Y, 0108, f1, 33, 157, 579, 1424, Maj 

avfei/nai P45, 01*, 892, pc 

parei/nai P75, 01 C1 , B*, L, f13, 700, 1071, pc, WH 

parafie,nai A 

(D omits the sentence.) 

It is possible that avfei/nai is a conformation in tense to the previous poih/sai. 

The variation in Lk is in part a harmonization to Mt. Difficult to judge. 

IQP has avfie, (only this part of the word) enclosed in double square brackets 

denoting that this reconstruction is "probable but uncertain". 

Metzger: "The committee regarded the second aorist as an Alexandrian 

refinement of the present tense." 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 71, 96) omits the complete sentence: "hardly" 

(schwerlich) in Q. It represents the bias (Tendenz) of Matthew. 


TVU 326 


NA 27 Matthew 23:24 o`dhgoi. tufloi,( oi` diu?li,zontej to.n kw,nwpa( th.n de. 

ka,mhlon katapi,nontejÅ 


omit 01 C1 , B, D*, L, sa mss , WH, Trg 

txt 01*, C, D C , W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, NA 25 , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

diu?li,zw "strain out, filter out" 

The omission is probably due to an assumed dittography (so already Weiss): 

tufloioidiulizontes 


TVU 327 

NA 27 Matthew 23:25-23:26 

Ouvai. u`mi/n grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi u`pokritai, o[ti kaqari,zete to. 

e;xwqen tou/ pothri,ou kai. th/j paroyi,doj e;swqen de. ge,mousin evx 

a`rpagh/j kai. avkrasi,ajÅ 

23:26 Farisai/e tufle, kaqa,rison prw/ton to. evnto.j tou/ pothri,ou 

i[na ge,nhtai kai. to. evkto.j auvtou/ kaqaro,nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 23:25-26 

Ouvai. u`mi/n grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi u`pokritai, o[ti kaqari,zete to. 

e;xwqen tou/ pothri,ou kai. th/j paroyi,doj e;swqen de. ge,mousin evx 

a`rpagh/j kai. avdiki,aj 

23:26 Farisai/e tufle, kaqa,rison prw/ton to. evnto.j tou/ pothri,ou 

kai. th/j paroyi,doj i[na ge,nhtai kai. to. evkto.j auvtw/n kaqaro,n 

kai. th/j paroyi,doj 

Byz 01, B, C, L, W, D, 0102, 0281, f13, 22, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, b, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, Co(+ mae-2), 

Basil(4 th CE), Trg, [WH], SBL 

txt D, Q, f1, 2*, 700, it(a, d, e, ff 2 , r 1 ), Sy-S, Ir Lat , Cl, NA 25 

Sy-C has a lacuna from here to the end of Mt! 

B: no umlaut 

Western non-interpolation, in brackets by WH. 

auvtw/n / auvtou/ 

Byz 01, B C , C, L, W, D, 0102, 0281, 22, 33, 892, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, sa 

txt B*, D, Q, f1, f13, 700, 1424, al, a, Sy-S, WH, NA 25 , Trg 

omit: X, pc, Lat, mae-1+2, Ir Lat 

In B (line 34 A, p. 1267) the ou is left unenhanced and the wn is written above 

it, acc. to Tischendorf by B 3 . 

kai. th/j paroyi,doj ... auvtou/ have: B*, E*, G, f13, 28, 157, 1424, some Lect

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 11:39 ei=pen de. o` ku,rioj pro.j auvto,n\ nu/n u`mei/j oi` Farisai/oi 

to. e;xwqen tou/ pothri,ou kai. tou/ pi,nakoj kaqari,zete( to. de. e;swqen 

u`mw/n ge,mei a`rpagh/j kai. ponhri,ajÅ ... 41 plh.n ta. evno,nta do,te 

evlehmosu,nhn( kai. ivdou. pa,nta kaqara. u`mi/n evstinÅ 

Although the readings paroyi,doj and the auvtw/n belong together (because a 

plural is needed), the support is not the same for both. B*, f13 et al. retain the 

singular auvtou/ even though they add paroyi,doj. Since sometimes neuter 

plurals takes a singular verb this is not decisive, though. 

The support for the omission of paroyi,doj is not very good, but together with 

the auvtou/ variant there is enough evidence to suspect the addition of 

paroyi,doj to be a harmonization to verse 25 (so Weiss). 


TVU 328 


NA 27 Matthew 23:35 o[pwj e;lqh| evfV u`ma/j pa/n ai-ma di,kaion evkcunno,menon 

evpi. th/j gh/j avpo. tou/ ai[matoj {Abel tou/ dikai,ou e[wj tou/ ai[matoj 

Zacari,ou uiòu/ Baraci,ou( o]n evfoneu,sate metaxu. tou/ naou/ kai. tou/ 

qusiasthri,ouÅ 

omit: 01*, g 1C , Sev Antioch 

uiòu/ Iwdae GHebr. (acc. to Jerome, "filii Jojadae") 

01: corrected by 01 C2 . 

"In evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni pro filio Barachiae filium Joiadae reperimus 

scriptum." 

"In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes, we have 'son of Jojada' instead of 'son of Barachia'." 

(Jerome, Mt-Com. at 23:35) 

Didymus the blind: o gar pathr tou baptistou Iwannou Zacariaj kai 

Baraciaj o toutou goneuj proshgoreuonto) 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

It is normally assumed that this refers to the following event: 

LXX 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 

kai. pneu/ma qeou/ evne,dusen to.n Azarian to.n tou/ Iwdae to.n ière,a ... 

Then the spirit of God took possession of Zechariah son of the priest Jehoiada; he stood above the 

people and said to them, "Thus says God: Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, 

so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has also forsaken you. 21 But 

they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the 

house of the LORD. 22 King Joash did not remember the kindness that Jehoiada, Zechariah's father, 

had shown him, but killed his son. As he was dying, he said, "May the LORD see and avenge!" 

If this event is meant, the uiòu/ Baraci,ou is wrong. The addition might have 

been inspired by one of the following: 

LXX Isaiah 8:2 kai. ma,rtura,j moi poi,hson pistou.j avnqrw,pouj to.n 

Ourian kai. to.n Zacarian uiò.n Baraciou 

LXX Zechariah 1:1 evn tw/| ovgdo,w| mhni. e;touj deute,rou evpi. Darei,ou 

evge,neto lo,goj kuri,ou pro.j Zacarian to.n tou/ Baraciou uiò.n Addw 

to.n profh,thn le,gwn 

LXX Zechariah 1:7 Darei,ou evge,neto lo,goj kuri,ou pro.j Zacarian to.n 

tou/ Baraciou uiò.n Addw to.n profh,thn le,gwn

Note, that the name in the LXX 2Chr 24:20 is Azariah and not Zechariah. 

T. Zahn (Einleitung II) notes a comment by Grotius, that this might refer to 

Josephus War IV, 5, 4, where the Zealots killed a certain Zechariah evn me,sw 

tou/ ièrou/. The name of the father is not clear, Ba,reij, Bariskai,ou and 

Barou,cou are given in the manuscripts. But Zahn finds this improbable, 

especially because the incident happened in the year 68 CE. 

Another suggestion is that the Zechariah is the father of John the Baptist. 

Origen (Tract. 26, Mt) mentions that he was killed by angry Jews for allowing 

Maria to stand in a place reserved for virgins only. 

The Protogospel of James 24:2 notes that he was killed because he did not want 

to disclose the whereabouts of his son John: avpotolmh,saj de. ei-j evx auvtw/n 

eivsh/lqen kai. ei=den para. to. qusiasth,rion kuri,ou ai-ma pephgo,j) kai. 

ivdou. fwnh. le,gousa\ Sacari,aj pefo,neutai … 

Note Origen (Comm. Mt book 10:18): 

" 'They were slain with the sword,' refer to Zachariah, who was slain "between 

the sanctuary and the altar," as the Savior taught, bearing testimony, as I think, 

to a Scripture, though not extant in the common and widely circulated books, 

but perhaps in apocryphal books." 

Severus of Antioch (first half of the 6 th CE) writes in a letter to Anastasia the 

deaconess: 

The words spoken by our Savior to the Jews, 'In order that upon you may come all the 

blood, of righteous men that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the 

righteous to the blood of Zacharias whom ye slew between the temple and the altar', have 

been variously understood by those who have interpreted, because concerning this matter 

nothing is plainly stated by the God-inspired Scripture. 

But, ... it is a right and reasonable thing, as it seems to me, to understand that he referred 

to Zacharias the priest, who begot for us the holy John the Forerunner and Baptist, whom 

a tradition not contained in Scripture relates that the Jews slew between the temple and 

the altar, ... 

And these things Gregory the wise in divine things, the brother of Basil the great, and 

bishop of Nyssa, in the sermon on the Nativity of our Savior, states thus: 

'But, if we are not straying a long way from the subject, it would perhaps not be 

inopportune to adduce Zacharias also who was slain between the temple and the altar 

to testify to the undefiled mother. ... Since therefore they heard that the King of 

creation was coming forth by dispensation to human birth, in fear of being under a 

king's rule they slew the man who testified these things concerning the birth, 

sacrificing the priest at the very altar.' 

But of the Zacharias who was one of the twelve prophets we cannot reasonably understand 

the passage quoted, since it is not related that he was killed, but he departed from life by 

the ordinary end of human life.

Some have supposed that in the above-quoted passage our Savior referred to Zacharias 

the son of Jehoiada who was put to death by Joash, king of the Jews. But this explanation 

is futile, and is refuted by the facts themselves. For it is not the case that the foul 

murder of prophets and priests, the murder which it is the intention of the evangelic 

saying of our Savior to set forth, was perpetrated down to his time and then ended. ... But 

besides these things we should know this also, that the man who was put do death by 

Joash was called Azarias and not Zacharias, though in certain copies some men have 

changed the name, and by a slight change have written 'Azarias' as 'Zacharias'. 

Accordingly for all these reasons it seems to be a just conclusion that we must 

consequently understand our Savior's saying of the father of John the Baptist, as the holy 

Gregory said. 

[compare E.W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 14, p. 79] 

It is pretty clear that Severus did not read uiòu/ Baraci,ou in his copy, 

otherwise all the given explanations cannot be understood. 

Blass notes Chrysostom and several scholia, that suggest a double name 

(duw,numoj). Cp. Tischendorf and Blass, Textkritische Bemerkungen, 1900, p. 43. 

Compare: 

C.W. Müller "Zur Erklärung des Zacari,ou uiòu/ Baraci,ou, Mt 23:35." TSK 14 

(1841) 673-680. 


TVU 329 


NA 27 Matthew 23:38 ivdou. avfi,etai u`mi/n o` oi=koj u`mw/n e;rhmojÅ 39 le,gw ... 

omit: P77 vid , B, L, ff 2 *, Sy-S, sa, bo pt , mae-2, NA 25 , WH, Weiss 

txt 01, C, D, W, X, D, Q, 0102, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1, bo pt , Eus, Basil(4 th CE), WH mg 

P77 (200 CE, POxy 2683 + 4405) is doubtful. According to the ed.pr. it reads: 

afeietai umin o Î c. 8 Ð ë le 

The editors write: "The trace before le is much more like s than n." 

This cannot be confirmed from the image (online): Only a small dot before the l 

can be seen. The le is quite certain (note that in the photo/original, the little 

fragment at the bottom is rotated by about 45 degrees.) The dot could be the 

top right edge of a s, but it could also be the remains of a n. Below the dot 

the papyrus breaks off. 

There is an extra file with images in the "Problematic Readings" folder of this 

commentary, see TCG home page! I have come to the conclusion that one can 

assign a "vid" to P77 for the omission. 

K.S. Min (ANTF 34, p. 196 + 209 reconstructs: Îoikoj umwnÐ ë lëeëÎgw 

Min's complete reconstruction of the papyrus page (p. 209) also seems to 

suggest an omission of e;rhmoj. It looks convincing. (In principle it is also 

possible that P77 omits singularly u`mw/n.) 

P.M. Head writes regarding P77, Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000), pp. 1-16: 

"In fact P 77 does not read e;rhmoj at all, except for what the original editors thought was 

a part of a sigma at the edge of the old fragment. The announcement of a new piece of the 

same page held out the prospect of further clarity on this subject, but unfortunately it 

remains lost between the two fragments. Close examination of the papyrus casts doubt on 

whether the extant ink is really part of a sigma at all (as to read it as a sigma creates 

another problem that requires a unique variant to be postulated in the intervening space). 

It seems more likely that P 77 should be read as a witness for the shorter reading here, 

which while not itself decisive, is an important contribution to an interesting, although 

comparatively minor problem." 

He adds on the textualcriticism list (Dec. 2005): "I did work both with the texts themselves - 

this included the use of some old but helpful microscopes in the Papyrology Room in the 

Ashmolean in Oxford - and with good photos." 


Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 13:35 ivdou. avfi,etai u`mi/n o` oi=koj u`mw/n Å 

BYZ Luke 13:35 ivdou. avfi,etai u`mi/n o` oi=koj u`mw/n e;rhmoj\ 

Byz D, N, D, Q, Y, 13, 346, 828, 983(=f13), 33, 157, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 

1424, Maj-part, it, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H 

txt P45 vid , P75, 01, A, B, K, P, L, R, S, V, W, Y, G, L, W, 047, f1, 69, 124, 174, 

230, 788(=f13), 565, 579, Maj-part, Lat, Sy-S, sa, bo mss , arm 

Compare LXX: 

LXX Jeremiah 12:7 evgkatale,loipa to.n oi=ko,n mou 

"I have forsaken my house" 

LXX Jeremiah 22:5 eva.n de. mh. poih,shte tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj katV 

evmautou/ w;mosa le,gei ku,rioj o[ti eivj evrh,mwsin e;stai o` oi=koj ou-toj 

"But if you will not heed these words, I swear by myself, says the LORD, that this house shall 

become a desolation." 

LXX Tobit 14:4 kai. Ieroso,luma e;stai e;rhmoj kai. o` oi=koj tou/ qeou/ evn 

auvth/| katakah,setai kai. e;rhmoj e;stai me,cri cro,nou 

"and Jerusalem will be desolate. And the temple of God in it will be burned to the ground, and it will be 

desolate for a while." 

Also 1.Ki 9:7f, Hag 1:9, Isa 64:10f., compare also: Act 1:20, 6:14 

The omission is possibly a harmonization to Lk. The sentence is rather catchy 

and memorable and perhaps the scribe added it from memory? But 

harmonization by omission is normally not a very convincing argument. Also 

harmonization to Luke is rather infrequent. Another variant that comes to mind 

is the omission of eivsin in Mt 11:8 by B in a similar construction, though not a 

harmonization. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 131) notes to the contrary: "Exegetical gloss, thinking of 

the destruction of Jerusalem." 

The sentence without e;rhmoj is not really clear. "your house is left to you" is 

equivocal and could be understood as "I relinquish the temple to you" which 

makes no sense in context. Intended is: "your house will be left/forsaken (by 

God)". Compare the LXX parallels. The addition of e;rhmoj then would be a 

natural clarification. u`mi/n is Dative incommodi: "your house will be left behind to 

you (destroyed)". 

The overall meaning of both readings is basically equivalent. But the short 

reading is more difficult to understand. The addition of e;rhmoj by scribes 

would then be an attempt to make the text more clear.

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) writes: "this addition is due to misunderstanding 

avfi,etai, which was taken to mean is left whereas it means evgkatalei,petai, is 

being forsaken. ... The translation of u`mi/n by unto you, or to your own disposal 

as Meyer puts it, is wrong; it is an ethic dative." [ethic dative: e.g. "me" in "he 

opens me his book". same here: "your house has been abandoned you".] 

The support for the short reading is early, good and diverse. It could be original. 

But if the short form is original in both Gospels, the addition of e;rhmoj by so 

many witnesses is striking. There are convincing arguments for the addition, but 

not for the omission. Anybody who argues for the short text in Mt must explain 

the origin of e;rhmoj in Mt (and Lk). How and why did it enter the manuscripts 

tradition so strongly? Allusion to Jer 22:5 is not enough, I think. 

Clement of Alexandria once cites the words with e;rhmoj (Paed. 1.79.3), but it is 

impossible to know if he is quoting Mt or Lk. 

Note that K.S. Min (INTF, Münster) now reconstructs P77 without e;rhmoj (see 

above). 

IQP's Crit. ed. has the saying without e;rhmoj as safe for Q. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 26) writes that avfi,etai u`mi/n o` oi=koj u`mw/n 

e;rhmoj is only a rendition of the Jeremian eivj evrh,mwsin e;stai o` oi=koj 

ou-toj but not fully logical and not in good Greek, which was improved by Luke in 

omitting e;rhmoj. 


TVU 330 

NA 27 Matthew 24:6 mellh,sete de. avkou,ein pole,mouj kai. avkoa.j pole,mwn\ 

o`ra/te mh. qroei/sqe\ dei/ ga.r gene,sqai( avllV ou;pw evsti.n to. te,lojÅ 

BYZ Matthew 24:6 mellh,sete de. avkou,ein pole,mouj kai. avkoa.j pole,mwn\ 

o`ra/te mh. qroei/sqe\ dei/ ga.r pa,nta gene,sqai avll ou;pw evsti.n to. te,loj 

T&T #59 

Byz C, W, D, (S), F, 0102, f13, 22, 700, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, Gre 

tau/ta Y mg , 372, 565, 2737, al 35 , Lat, Sy-S, mae-2 

pa,nta tau/ta 1241, 2786, al 38 , f 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, f1, 33, 892, pc 5 , a, d, Co 

pc = 557, 1113*, 1604, 2217, 2524 

Y* omits dei/ … gene,sqai, a corrector adds dei/ ga.r tau/ta gene,sqai in the 

margin. 

omit evsti.n: 33, 1424 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 13:7 o[tan de. avkou,shte pole,mouj kai. avkoa.j pole,mwn( 

mh. qroei/sqe\ dei/ gene,sqai( avllV ou;pw to. te,lojÅ 

BYZ Mark 13:7 dei/ ga.r gene,sqai 

157, 1424: dei/ ga.r pa,nta gene,sqai 

NA 27 Luke 21:9 o[tan de. avkou,shte pole,mouj kai. avkatastasi,aj( mh. 

ptohqh/te\ dei/ ga.r tau/ta gene,sqai prw/ton( avllV ouvk euvqe,wj to. te,lojÅ 

1424: dei/ ga.r pa,nta gene,sqai 


NA 27 Matthew 23:36 h[xei tau/ta pa,nta evpi. th.n genea.n tau,thnÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 24:2 ouv ble,pete tau/ta pa,ntaÈ 

NA 27 Matthew 24:8 pa,nta de. tau/ta avrch. wvdi,nwnÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 24:33 ou[twj kai. u`mei/j( o[tan i;dhte pa,nta tau/ta( 


ouv mh. pare,lqh| h` genea. au[th e[wj a'n pa,nta tau/ta ge,nhtaiÅ

Either tau/ta is a harmonization to Lk, and pa,nta tau/ta is a conflation of the 

two. Or all these tau/ta and pa,nta are inspired from the immediate context. 

The support for the Byzantine reading is not very good. 

On the other hand the omission of pa,nta can, in principal, be a harmonization to 

Mk. If it's a harmonization to Mk, one could expect also the omission of evsti.n. 


TVU 331 


NA 27 Matthew 24:7 evgerqh,setai ga.r e;qnoj evpi. e;qnoj kai. basilei,a evpi. 

basilei,an kai. e;sontai limoi. kai. seismoi. kata. to,pouj\ 

BYZ Matthew 24:7 evgerqh,setai ga.r e;qnoj evpi. e;qnoj kai. basilei,a evpi. 

basilei,an kai. e;sontai limoi. kai. loimoi. kai. seismoi. kata. to,pouj\ 

"famines and plagues" 

Byz C, L, W, Q, 0102, f1, f13, 33, Maj, 

Lat(aur, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, mae-1, Weiss 

limoi. kai. loimoi. C, K, P, D, Q, 0102, f1, f13, 28, 157, 565, 700, 

1071, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1 

loimoi. kai. limoi. L, W, 33, L2211, pc, Lat, Sy-Pal, Trg mg 

limoi. kai. limoi. (sic!) 579, pc 

txt 01, B, D, E*, 892, pc, it(a, b, d, ff 2 ), Sy-S, sa, mae-2 

seismoi. kai. limoi. 01 

828 wrote first e;sontai loimoi., but the first o is deleted. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 13:8 evgerqh,setai ga.r e;qnoj evpV e;qnoj kai. basilei,a evpi. 

basilei,an( e;sontai seismoi. kata. to,pouj( e;sontai limoi,\ 

NA 27 Luke 21:11 seismoi, te mega,loi kai. kata. to,pouj limoi. kai. loimoi. 

e;sontai( fo,bhtra, te kai. avpV ouvranou/ shmei/a mega,la e;staiÅ 

loimoi. kai. limoi. B, 157, 1241, pc, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C 

An omission by h.t. is possible IMOI - IMOI (so Weiss). Note the omission by 

E*. The support for txt is not very good. 

On the other hand a harmonization to Lk is also possible (so Zahn). 

The addition of loimoi. appeared as limoi. kai. loimoi. and loimoi. kai. 

limoi.. Addition at different places is a strong indication for a later insertion.

On the other hand it could be accidental, the words look quite similar and were 

pronounced alike in Hellenistic times (i = oi). 

Compare the same variation in Lk 21:11. 


TVU 332 


NA 27 Matthew 24:9 To,te paradw,sousin u`ma/j eivj qli/yin kai. 

avpoktenou/sin u`ma/j( kai. e;sesqe misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn tw/n evqnw/n 

dia. to. o;noma, mouÅ 

omit: C, f1, 652, 828(f13), 1424, 2542, al, l, Sy-S, bo mss 

evqnw/n D*, 22, 517, 954, pc 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 13:13 kai. e;sesqe misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn dia. to. 

o;noma, mouÅ 

NA 27 Luke 21:17 kai. e;sesqe misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn dia. to. 

o;noma, mouÅ 

Probably a harmonization to the parallels. Interestingly there are no variants for 

the parallels! 

Both omissions could also be due to h.t. (..wn - ..wn, so Weiss). 


TVU 333 



NA 27 Matthew 24:24 evgerqh,sontai ga.r yeudo,cristoi kai. yeudoprofh/tai 

kai. dw,sousin shmei/a mega,la kai. te,rata w[ste planh/sai( eiv dunato,n( 

kai. tou.j evklektou,jÅ 

plana/sqai L, Z, Q, f1, 22, 33, 157, pc, WH, Trg 

txt planh/sai B, W, 0281 vid , f13, 892, Maj, 

planhqh/nai 01, D, Tis, Bal 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

planh/sai infinitive aorist active 

planhqh/nai infinitive aorist passive 

plana/sqai infinitive present passive 

c, f, ff 1 , h, Sy, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 13:22 evgerqh,sontai ga.r yeudo,cristoi kai. yeudoprofh/tai 

kai. dw,sousin shmei/a kai. te,rata pro.j to. avpoplana/n( eiv dunato,n( 

tou.j evklektou,jÅ 

avpoplana/n infinitive present active 

All forms occur only here in the Gospels. Mk has the word in the active voice. It 

is possible that the active planh/sai is a conformation to Mk. This is the opinion 

of Tischendorf. The aorist emphasizes completion "get them misled" whereas 

the present points simply to the process "mislead them." 

Matthew's usage of verbs with w[ste is not very helpful: 

present active 7 

present passive 2 

aorist active 4 

Weiss argues (Comm. Mt) that there is no harmonization to Mk, but that a 

change into the passive suggests itself. 


TVU 334 

NA 27 Matthew 24:31 kai. avpostelei/ tou.j avgge,louj auvtou/ meta. sa,lpiggoj 

mega,lhj( 

BYZ Matthew 24:31 kai. avpostelei/ tou.j avgge,louj auvtou/ meta. sa,lpiggoj 

fwnh/j mega,lhj 

Byz B, (D), X, f13, 22, 33, 579, (1241), Maj, 

(Lat), Sy-H**, Sy-Pal, sa, WH mg , Weiss, Trg 

sa,lpiggoj kai. fwnh/j mega,lhj D, 1241, al, Lat 

"cum tuba et voce magna" 

txt 01, L, W, D, Q, f1, 517, 700, 892*, 954, 1424, 1675, pc, 

(e), Sy-S, Sy-P, mae-1+2, bo, arm, geo, Eus, WH, NA 25 

e reads "cum turba magna" = meta. o;cloj polu.j. Clearly "turba" is an error for 

"tuba" (trumpet) 

892: The word has been added in the margin (triplet sign). 

Lacuna: C, Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Note minority reading by 579 at Mk 13:27: 

NA 27 Mark 13:27 kai. to,te avpostelei/ tou.j avgge,louj Þ kai. evpisuna,xei 

tou.j evklektou.j Îauvtou/Ð evk tw/n tessa,rwn avne,mwn avpV a;krou gh/j e[wj 

a;krou ouvranou/Å 

Þ auvtou/ meta. sa,lpiggoj fwnh/j mega,lhj 579 

Compare LXX: 

LXX Exodus 19:16 kai. evgi,nonto fwnai. kai. avstrapai. kai. nefe,lh 

gnofw,dhj evpV o;rouj Sina fwnh. th/j sa,lpiggoj h;cei me,ga kai. 

evptoh,qh pa/j o` lao.j o` evn th/| parembolh/| 

LXX Exodus 19:19 evgi,nonto de. ai` fwnai. th/j sa,lpiggoj probai,nousai 

ivscuro,terai sfo,dra 

LXX Exodus 20:18 kai. pa/j o` lao.j e`w,ra th.n fwnh.n kai. ta.j lampa,daj 

kai. th.n fwnh.n th/j sa,lpiggoj 

LXX Leviticus 25:9 kai. diaggelei/te sa,lpiggoj fwnh/| evn pa,sh| th/| gh/| 

LXX 2 Chronicles 15:14 kai. w;mosan evn tw/| kuri,w| evn fwnh/| mega,lh| kai. evn 

sa,lpigxin kai. evn kerati,naij 

LXX Isaiah 18:3 w`sei. shmei/on avpo. o;rouj avrqh/| w`j sa,lpiggoj fwnh. 

avkousto.n e;stai

LXX Isaiah 27:13 kai. e;stai evn th/| h`me,ra| evkei,nh| salpiou/sin th/| sa,lpiggi 

th/| mega,lh| 

LXX 1 Maccabees 3:54 kai. evsa,lpisan tai/j sa,lpigxin kai. evbo,hsan fwnh/| 

mega,lh| 

Compare NT: 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 14:8 kai. ga.r eva.n a;dhlon sa,lpigx fwnh.n dw/|( 

NA 27 1 Thessalonians 4:16 evn fwnh/| avrcagge,lou kai. evn sa,lpiggi qeou/( 

NA 27 Revelation 1:10 h;kousa ovpi,sw mou fwnh.n mega,lhn w`j sa,lpiggoj 

sa,lpigx appears only here in the Gospels, fwnh, mega,lh appears 13 times in 

the Gospels. Also fwnh, is coupled with mega,lh and sa,lpigx sometimes in the 

LXX (see above). Therefore it is quite probably that fwnh, has been added to 

enhance the expression. 

The general question is if the term means 

"angels with a loud trumpet call" or 

"angels with a large trumpet" 

Weiss does not believe that fwnh, is a secondary addition. To the contrary he 

thinks that scribes found it objectionable and either added a kai. (D, Lat) or 

omitted it. 


TVU 335 


NA 27 Matthew 24:30 ... kai. o;yontai to.n uiò.n tou/ avnqrw,pou evrco,menon 

evpi. tw/n nefelw/n tou/ ouvranou/ meta. duna,mewj kai. do,xhj pollh/j\ 

NA 27 Matthew 24:31 kai. avpostelei/ tou.j avgge,louj auvtou/ meta. sa,lpiggoj 

mega,lhj( kai. evpisuna,xousin tou.j evklektou.j auvtou/ evk tw/n tessa,rwn 

avne,mwn avpV a;krwn ouvranw/n e[wj Îtw/nÐ a;krwn auvtw/n Þ Å 

NA 27 Matthew 24:32 VApo. de. th/j sukh/j ma,qete th.n parabolh,n\ 

Þ avrcome,nwn de. tou,twn gi,nesqai avnable,yate kai. evpa,rate ta.j 

kefala.j u`mw/n( dio,ti evggi,zei h` avpolu,trwsij u`mw/nÅ 

"Cum coeperint autem haec fieri, respicite et levate 

capita vestra, quoniam adpropiat redemptio vestra." 

D, 1093, it(b, c, d, h, q, r 1 ) 

omitted by: a, aur, e, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , l, vg 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 21:27 kai. to,te o;yontai to.n uiò.n tou/ avnqrw,pou evrco,menon 

evn nefe,lh| meta. duna,mewj kai. do,xhj pollh/jÅ 

NA 27 Luke 21:28 avrcome,nwn de. tou,twn gi,nesqai avnaku,yate kai. evpa,rate 

ta.j kefala.j u`mw/n( dio,ti evggi,zei h` avpolu,trwsij u`mw/nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 21:29 Kai. ei=pen parabolh.n auvtoi/j\ i;dete th.n sukh/n ... 

Probably a harmonization to Lk. There is no reason for an omission. 

The insertion point is interesting. In Lk the sentence appears after do,xhj 

pollh/j, which is the end of verse 30 in Mt. But Mt further adds another 

sentence, verse 31, before the lesson of the fig tree. 

Note that D reads avnable,yate against avnaku,yate in Lk. 


TVU 336 

NA 27 Matthew 24:36 Peri. de. th/j h`me,raj evkei,nhj kai. w[raj ouvdei.j oi=den( 

ouvde. oi` a;ggeloi tw/n ouvranw/n ouvde. o` uiò,j( eiv mh. o` path.r mo,nojÅ 

BYZ Matthew 24:36 Peri. de. th/j h`me,raj evkei,nhj kai. w[raj ouvdei.j oi=den 

ouvde. oi` a;ggeloi tw/n ouvranw/n eiv mh. o` path.r mou mo,noj 

T&T #60 

Byz 01 C2 , L, W, D, S, f1, 22, 33, 700, 892, Maj 1500 , 

g 1 , l, vg, Sy, Co(+ mae-2), Hier mss , Trg 

txt 01*, B, D, Q, F, f13, 28, 2680, al 90 , it, vg mss , Sy-Pal, arm, geo 1,B , 

Ir, (Or), Did, Chrys, Cyr(Hesych), Hier mss , Basil(4 th CE) 

Origen knows the variant. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 13:32 Peri. de. th/j h`me,raj evkei,nhj h' th/j w[raj ouvdei.j oi=den( 

ouvde. oi` a;ggeloi evn ouvranw/| ouvde. o` uiò,j( eiv mh. o` path,rÅ 

omit: X, 983, 1689(=f13 C ), pc, vg mss 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Mark 13:33 Ble,pete( avgrupnei/te\ ouvk oi;date ga.r Þ po,te o` kairo,j 

evstinÅ Þ eiv mh. o` path.r kai. o` uio.j W 

The term was very probably omitted because it represented a doctrinal 

difficulty. Also grammatically it is more probable that the phrase was original. 

For ouvde. ... ouvde., neither ... nor it is needed, also the mo,noj at the end seems 

to imply that more than one was mentioned before. 

It is noteworthy that the phrase was omitted from Mk, too, by some 

manuscripts. 

The addition in W is interesting. Perhaps it got into the text from a marginal 

comment? Inconsistently W does not omit the phrase in verse 32. In verse 32 

uio.j is written as nomen sacrum, in verse 33 it is written in full.

Also: Why should the phrase have been added if it is not original? A 

harmonization to Mk is rather improbable. 

It has been argued that both Mt and Lk omitted the words (Lk the complete 

sentence) from Mk. 

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew wrote (on the TC list): 

"A. Plummer (Exegetical Comm. Gospel of Matt., p.339) agrees that the phrase OUDE hO hUIOS 

found in Mk 13:32 caused consternation over the christological implications in the early church. 

Very early in fact. Plummer argues that both Matthew and Luke omitted. 

Plummer (pp. xiv-xvi) demonstrates how Matthew regularly cleaned up what he deemed dubious 

material in Mark that might cast a shadow of doubt on the Messiah. (see B.Ehrman's foot note 

#221 page 117). 

H.Alford has a textual note that Athanasius reported a discussion of Mk 13:32 at Nicea, but 

OUDE hO hUIOS was not known in Matt 24:36. I wasn't able to trace down this precise 

information in Athanasius but I did find a diatribe of sorts on Mk 13:32." 

The sentence is in the Arabic Diatessaron, but it is not clear if it is from Mt or 

Mk. It includes the phrase "neither the son". 

Compare also the church fathers: 

Ambrose (4 th CE, De Fide 5.16.193) 

Scriptum est, inquiunt: "De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque angeli 

caelorum nec filius, nisi pater solus." Primum veteres non habent codices graeci 

quia nec filius scit. Sed non mirum, si et hoc falsarunt, qui scripturas 

interpolavere divinas. Qua ratione autem videatur adiectum, proditur cum ad 

interpraetationem tanti sacrilegi dirivatur. 

Several quotes are in Tischendorf: 

Ps-Ath dispu 170 : en men tw matq. ou feretai oude o uioj oide thn hm. ek. 

- monwtatoj de Markoj efh\ oude o uioj oide thn hmeran) 

Hier: in h.1. "In quibusdam Latinis edd. additum est neque filius, quum in Graecis 

et maxime Adamantii [i.e. Origen] et Pierii [presbyter of Alexandria, 3 rd CE] 

exemplarib. hoc non habeatur additum; sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum 

videtur. Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri" - - Nihilominus 

postquam probavit aliter explicandum esse locum ac verba sonent, pergit: "igitur 

quia probavimus non ignorare filium consummationis diem, caussa reddenda est 

cur ignorare dicatur," unde diffidere videtur codicibus qui non habent.

Bas ep 236 : p. 361. h men oun tou matq) lexij outwj ecei\ peri de thj hm) 

ek) kai thj wr) [edd plures om k) t) w)] oudeij oid) oude oi agg) twn 

our) ei mh o pa) monos) h de tou markou\ peri - kai [cdd 5 h] wr) oud) 

oid) oude oi agg) oi [cod 1 om] en ouranw oude o uioj( ei mh o pathr) 

ti toinun estin en toutoij epishmhnasqai axion; oti o men maq) 

ouden eipe peri thj tou uiou agnwsias\ dokei de tw mark) 

sumferesqai kata thn ennoian ek tou fanai\ ei mh o pat) monos) 

Plura ex his in scholia vetera transiere. 

Did tri 195 : i.e. 3, 22 allatis Marci verbis pergit: matq) men gar pro autou - - 

ouk eipen ton uion agnoein( alla kai to schma auto tou telouj 

eidenai exeqeto toiwsde\ peri de thj hm) ek) h thj wr) - - o pathr 

monoj\ wsper gar etc. Additque plura explicationis caussa, respiciens a Basilio 

in ep. ad Amphil scripta. 

Ps-Ath dispu 170 : en men tw matq) ou feretai\ oude o uioj oide thn hm) 

ek) - monwtatoj de markoj efh\ oude o uioj oide thn hmeran) 


TVU 337 


NA 27 Matthew 24:38 w`j ga.r h=san evn tai/j h`me,raij Îevkei,naijÐ tai/j pro. 

tou/ kataklusmou/ trw,gontej kai. pi,nontej( gamou/ntej kai. gami,zontej( 

a;cri h-j h`me,raj eivsh/lqen Nw/e eivj th.n kibwto,n( 

BYZ Matthew 24:38 {Wsper ga.r h=san evn tai/j h`me,raij tai/j pro. 

tou/ kataklusmou/ trw,gontej kai. pi,nontej( gamou/ntej kai. 

evkgami,zontej( a;cri h-j h`me,raj eivsh/lqen Nw/e eivj th.n kibwto,n( 

Byz 01, L, W, Q, 067, f1, f13, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1342, 

Maj, Lat(a, e, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg), Sy-S, Sy-P, bo, arm, Or, Jerome, 

Tis, Bal, Gre, SBL 

omit also tai/j pro.: L, 892 

txt B, D, 579, pc, L524, it(aur, b, c, d, f, ff 2 , h, r 1 ), vg mss , sa, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, 

[Trg], [NA 25 ], [WH], Weiß, Bois 

tou/ Nw/e 1424, Chr 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 24:37 {Wsper ga.r ai` h`me,rai tou/ Nw/e( ou[twj e;stai h` 

parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 20:1 Kai. evge,neto evn mia/| tw/n h`merw/n dida,skontoj 

auvtou/ to.n lao.n evn tw/| ièrw/| kai. euvaggelizome,nou evpe,sthsan 

oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j su.n toi/j presbute,roij 

add evkei,nwn: A, C, W, D, Q, f13, 33, Maj 

NA 27 Luke 2:1 VEge,neto de. evn tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij evxh/lqen do,gma … 

safe! 

NA 27 Luke 4:2 Kai. ouvk e;fagen ouvde.n evn tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij … 

safe! 

NA 27 Luke 6:12 VEge,neto de. evn tai/j h`me,raij tau,taij … 

evn tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij D, 579!

Some form of the phrase evn th/| h`me,ra| evkei,nh| occurs about 240 times in the 

Bible. The specific form evn tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij occurs 60 times. Thus 

evkei,naij is a natural edition here. Note also that D and 579 add evkei,naij also 

in Lk 6:12. 579 is Byzantine in Mt. 


TVU 338 



NA 27 Matthew 24:39 kai. ouvk e;gnwsan e[wj h=lqen o` kataklusmo.j kai. 

h=ren a[pantaj( ou[twj e;stai Îkai.Ð h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

omit B, D, 892, L2211, pc, 

it(a, b, d, ff 1 , h, q, r 1 ), vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-P, Co, WH, Trg 

txt 01, L, W, Q, 067, f1, f13, 33, Maj, 

Lat(aur, c, e, f, ff 2 , g 1 , l, vg), Sy-H, NA 25 , Weiss 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 24:27 ou[twj e;stai h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pou\ 

BYZ Matthew 24:27 ou[twj e;stai kai. h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pou 

(not in NA but in SQE!) 

Byz W, 118, 1582 C , f13, 157, 1424, Maj-part[M, D] 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, f1, 33, 700, 1071, Maj-part 

and verse 37: 

NA 27 Matthew 24:37 ou[twj e;stai h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pouÅ 

BYZ Matthew 24:37 ou[twj e;stai kai. h` parousi,a tou/ uiòu/ tou/ avnqrw,pou 

Byz D, W, Q, 067, f1, f13, 579, Maj, Lat, Sy-H 

txt 01, B, L, U, G, 33, 700, 892, pc, it, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-P, Co 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 17:26 ou[twj e;stai kai. evn tai/j h`me,raij tou/ uiòu/ tou/ 

avnqrw,pou\ omit kai.: G, f13, 579 

NA 27 Luke 17:30 kata. ta. auvta. e;stai h-| h`me,ra| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou 

avpokalu,ptetaiÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 11:30 ou[twj e;stai kai. o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou th/| genea/| tau,th|Å

Tischendorf thinks that the addition in verse 37 is a conformation to Lk. But a 

harmonization to Lk is rather improbable, because the following words are not 

the same. If all additions of kai. in Mt are secondary it is difficult to explain 

where they come from. The addition in verse 27 is probably secondary, because 

the support is very bad. 

The omission is probably at least in part accidental, due to h.t.: ai …ai. 

Compare: 

24:27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, 

so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

24:37 For as the days of Noah were, 

so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

24:39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, 

so [too] will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

It is possible that the kai. has been added to contrast the two examples. The 

coming of the Son of Man is on the one hand like a lightning, and ALSO as the 

flood in the days of Noah. But if it was already Matthew who added the kai. is 

not clear. 

verse 37: 

add kai.: D, W, Q, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H 

no kai.: 01, B, L, U, G, 33, 700, 892, pc, it, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-P, Co 

verse 39: 

add kai.: 01, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-H 

no kai.: B, D, 892, L2211, pc, it, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-P, Co 

Difficult. Brackets ok. 


TVU 339 


NA 27 Matthew 24:40 to,te du,o e;sontai evn tw/| avgrw/|( ei-j paralamba,netai 

kai. ei-j avfi,etai\ 

e;sontai du,o 01*, B, 892, pc, aur, h, l, r 1 , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bois, Tis, Bal 

txt 01 C2 , D, L, W, Q, 067, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 24:41 du,o avlh,qousai evn tw/| mu,lw|( mi,a paralamba,netai 

kai. mi,a avfi,etaiÅ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 17:34 e;sontai du,o evpi. kli,nhj mia/j( o` ei-j paralhmfqh,setai 

kai. o` e[teroj avfeqh,setai\ 

du,o e;sontai A, K, P, M, N, U, W, Q, f13, al 

NA 27 Luke 17:35 e;sontai du,o avlh,qousai evpi. to. auvto,( h` mi,a 

paralhmfqh,setai( h` de. e`te,ra avfeqh,setaiÅ 

du,o e;sontai A, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 157, 565, 700, Maj 

Luke 17:36 du,o e;sontai evn tw/| avgrw/|\ o` ei;j paralhfqh,setai( kai. 

o` e[teroj avfeqh,setaiÅ 

du,o e;sontai U, f13, 700 

omit e;sontai D, 579 

The change in Lk is always from e;sontai du,o to du,o e;sontai probably as a 

harmonization to Mt. 

It is possible that e;sontai du,o is a harmonization to Lk. 

That to,te is followed directly by the verb is the norm. 

Everything points to e;sontai du,o to be secondary. 

IQP has the Lukan e;sontai du,o as safe for Q. So also Harnack. 


TVU 340 


NA 27 Matthew 24:41 du,o avlh,qousai evn tw/| mu,lw|( mi,a paralamba,netai kai. 

mi,a avfi,etai Þ Å 

Þ du,o evpi. kli,nhj mia/j( ei-j paralamba,netai kai. ei-j avfi,etai 

duo in lecto uno, unus adsumetur et unus relinquetur. 

D, f13, pc, it, vg Sixt. , vg mss , Or 

it: - e cites the words before verse 41 (as in Lk) 

- ff 1,2 cite it instead of verse 41 

- aur, g 1 , l, r 1 , vg do not have the addition at all. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 17:34 le,gw u`mi/n( tau,th| th/| nukti. e;sontai du,o evpi. kli,nhj 

mia/j( o` ei-j paralhmfqh,setai kai. o` e[teroj avfeqh,setai\ 

NA 27 Luke 17:35 e;sontai du,o avlh,qousai evpi. to. auvto,( h` mi,a 

paralhmfqh,setai( h` de. e`te,ra avfeqh,setai Þ Å 

Þ du,o e;sontai evn tw/| avgrw/|\ o` ei;j paralhfqh,setai( kai. o` 

e[teroj avfeqh,setaiÅ 

add verse: D, U, f13, 579, 700, 1071, al, Lat, Sy, arm 


NA 27 Matthew 24:40 to,te du,o e;sontai evn tw/| avgrw/|( ei-j paralamba,netai 

kai. ei-j avfi,etai\ 

Probably added from memory. 

On the other hand it is in principle possible that the words were omitted due to 

h.t. (avfi,etai - avfi,etai) or homoioarcton (du,o - du,o). But the quality of the 

supporting witnesses is not very reliable. 

Note that D, f13, Lat also add in Lk in the same manner the Matthean verse 40! 

Note also: IQP's Crit. ed. has basically the Matthean version for Q 17:34-35, 

but the words from Mt 24:40 evn tw/| avgrw/| are in double brackets, indicating 

doubt that text was present here. 

Harnack (Sprüche Jesu, p. 74-5, 102) has the Matthean form as safe.

Severus of Antioch (early 6 th CE) cites both Gospels in his "8 th letter of the 2 nd 

book" to the deaconess Anastasia: 

Of the words, 'Two men shall be at that time m the field, one is taken away 

and one left, two women shall be grinding in the mill, one is taken away and 

one left', this is the explanation: ... But the very wise Luke the Evangelist 

wrote this passage in the following form: 'In this night there shall be two 

in one bed; the one shall be taken and the other left. There shall be two 

women grinding together; the one shall be taken away but the other left.' 

[compare E.W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 14, p. 111-12] 

The order in the Arabic Diatessaron is: 

Mt 24:37-39, Lk 17:28-37, Mt 24:42-44 


TVU 341 


NA 27 Matthew 24:48 eva.n de. ei;ph| o` kako.j dou/loj evkei/noj evn th/| kardi,a| 

auvtou/\ croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj( 

BYZ Matthew 24:48 eva.n de. ei;ph| o` kako.j dou/loj evkei/noj evn th/| kardi,a| 

auvtou/\ croni,zei o` ku,rioj mou evlqei/n( 

croni,zei o` ku,rioj mou evlqei/n W, D, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy, mae-1 

croni,zei o` ku,rioj mou e;rcesqai S, F, f1, Or?, Basil(4 th CE) 

croni,zei o` ku,rioj mou pri.n h' evlqei/n mae-2 (reconstruction Schenke) 

croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj evlqei/n C, D, L, Q, 067, 579, 1010, 1424, 

pc, Gre, Trg mg 

croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj e;rcesqai 157 

croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj 01, B, 33, 700, 892, pc, bo, sa 

X Comm. is citing croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj, but nothing more. X txt is missing. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

"My master takes a long time (to come)." 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 12:45 eva.n de. ei;ph| o` dou/loj evkei/noj evn th/| kardi,a| auvtou/\ 

croni,zei o` ku,rio,j mou e;rcesqai( 

croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj evlqei/n K, P, pc 

croni,zei o` ku,rio,j mou evlqei/n M, Y, 983, 1241, pc 

croni,zei mou o` ku,rioj e;rcesqai 01*, Y, 2, 579, pc 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 24:46 maka,rioj o` dou/loj evkei/noj o]n evlqw.n o` ku,rioj auvtou/ 

eu`rh,sei ou[twj poiou/nta\ 

The support for the omission is not that good. e;rcesqai is clearly a 

harmonization to Lk. evlqei/n might be a harmonization to immediate context, 

verse 46. There is no reason why it should have been omitted. Regarding the

position of mou, it can be argued that the normal position would be after the 

noun, so a change would be natural, also as a harmonization to Lk. 

IQP's Crit. ed. has croni,zei o` ku,rio,j mou without "to come" as safe for Q! 

Note that there is no manuscript support for this reading, neither in Mt nor in 

Lk! 

Fleddermann ("Q - A reconstruction", 2005) has croni,zei mou o` ku,rio,j. So 

also Harnack. 


TVU 342 


NA 27 Matthew 25:1 To,te o`moiwqh,setai h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n de,ka 

parqe,noij( ai[tinej labou/sai ta.j lampa,daj eàutw/n evxh/lqon eivj 

u`pa,nthsin tou/ numfi,ou ÞÅ 

Þ kai. th/j nu,mfhj D, X, Q, S, f1, 124*, 174(=f13), pc, 

Latt, Sy, mae-1 (not mae-2), arm, geo mss , 

Or, Basil(4 th CE) 

There is a note in the Old Latin c: 

"sponsa non in omnibus exemplariis invenitur, nominatim in Alexandrino." 

X: The reading in X has been deleted, but it is still clearly visible. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: umlaut! (line 17r C, p. 1269) numfi,ouÅ 2 pe,nte de. evx 

Quite good support. There is no reason for an omission. 

Burkitt considers it genuine. 

Compare: 

• F.C. Burkitt "The parable of the ten virgins" JTS 30 (1929) 267-70 

• H.L. Goudge "The parable of the ten virgins" JTS 30 (1929) 399-401 


TVU 343 


NA 27 Matthew 25:6 me,shj de. nukto.j kraugh. ge,gonen\ ivdou. o` numfi,oj( 

evxe,rcesqe eivj avpa,nthsin Îauvtou/ÐÅ 

evgei,resqe Q, f1, 652, 157, pc, (bo), Or 

e;rcetai evxe,rcesqe W, D, f13, 28, 565, 579, 1342, 1424, Maj, Lat, Sy 

e;rcetai evgei,resqe Q, f1, 157 

e;xercetai D* 

txt 01, A, B, C, D C , L, Z, 33, 700, 892, pc, sa mss , bo pt 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 25:7 to,te hvge,rqhsan pa/sai ai` parqe,noi evkei/nai kai. 

evko,smhsan ta.j lampa,daj eàutw/nÅ 

Probably a harmonization to the next verse. 

The majority addition of e;rcetai is a natural addition. There is no reason for an 

omission. 


TVU 344 





omit 01, B, (Z), 700, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

u`pa,nthsin Z 

txt A, (C), D, L, W, (Q), 0249, f1, f13, 892, Maj 

u`pa,nthsin auvtou/ Q, 157, pc 

sunpa,nthsin auvtw/| C 

B: no umlaut 

eivj avpa,nthsin Îauvtou/Ð "to meet [him]" 

h` avpa,nthsij is a noun, so literally "for a meeting [with him]" 

Compare context, verse 1: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:1 ai[tinej labou/sai ta.j lampa,daj eàutw/n evxh/lqon eivj 

u`pa,nthsin tou/ numfi,ouÅ 

avpa,nthsin tou/ numfi,ou D, L, W, Q, f13, 33, Maj 

(Swanson indicates a B C reading here, but this is only a diaeresis with accent.) 

Compare: 

NA 27 John 12:13 e;labon ta. bai

The u`pa,nthsin readings are conformations to verse 1. suna,nthsin is possibly 

a conformation to the Byzantine text of Mt 8:34. 

The normal usage is to add a dative or genitive object. An addition would be thus 

only natural. There is no reason for an omission. 


brackets ok

TVU 345 

NA 27 Matthew 25:13 grhgorei/te ou=n( o[ti ouvk oi;date th.n h`me,ran ouvde. 

th.n w[ranÅ 

BYZ Matthew 25:13 grhgorei/te ou=n o[ti ouvk oi;date th.n h`me,ran ouvde. th.n 

w[ran evn h-| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou e;rcetaiÅ 

T&T #61 

[Note: from here A/02 is available, it starts in the middle of verse 6.] 

Byz C C3 , K, Y mg , f13, 579, 700, 1424 C , 1582 C , Maj 1500 , vg mss 

txt P35(3 rd CE), 01, A, B, C*, D, L, W, X, Y*, D, Q, P*, S, F, 047, 0136, 0211, 

f1, 174(f13), 22, 33, 372, 565, 892, 1424*, 2737, al 150 , 

Lat, Sy, Co(+ mae-2) 

1424: The words have been added at the end of a line by a later hand (image no. 046b) 

1582: The words have been added in the margin by a later hand (image no. 1410). 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut (but one line above: p. 1270 A 18, o[ti ouvk oi;date th.n h`me,ran) 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Matthew 24:42 Grhgorei/te ou=n( o[ti ouvk oi;date poi,a| h`me,ra| o` 

ku,rioj u`mw/n e;rcetaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 24:42 ouvk oi;date poi,a| w[ra| 

NA 27 Matthew 24:44 o[ti h-| ouv dokei/te w[ra| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou e;rcetaiÅ 

BYZ Matthew 24:44 o[ti h-| w[ra| ouv dokei/te o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou e;rcetaiÅ 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 13:33 Ble,pete( avgrupnei/te\ ouvk oi;date ga.r po,te o` kairo,j 

evstinÅ 

NA 27 Mark 13:35 grhgorei/te ou=n\ ouvk oi;date ga.r po,te o` ku,rioj th/j 

oivki,aj e;rcetai( 

This is a natural addition from the previous context. The support is also not very 

good. 


TVU 346 

NA 27 Matthew 25:15-25:16 kai. w-| me.n e;dwken pe,nte ta,lanta( w-| de. du,o( w-| 

de. e[n( e`ka,stw| kata. th.n ivdi,an du,namin( kai. avpedh,mhsenÅ euvqe,wj 16 

poreuqei.j o` ta. pe,nte ta,lanta labw.n hvrga,sato evn auvtoi/j kai. 

evke,rdhsen a;lla pe,nte\ 

BYZ Matthew 25:15-25:16 kai. w-| me.n e;dwken pe,nte ta,lanta w-| de. du,o w-| 

de. e[n e`ka,stw| kata. th.n ivdi,an du,namin kai. avpedh,mhsen euvqe,wj) 16 

poreuqei.j de, o` ta. pe,nte ta,lanta labw.n eivrga,sato evn auvtoi/j kai. 

evpoi,hsen a;lla pe,nte\ ta,lanta 

euvqe,wjÅ poreuqei.j de. 01 C2 , A, C, D, L, W, X, D, f13, 33, 157, 579, 892, 

1071, 1241, 1424, Maj, 

Lat(aur, d, l, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, Trg 

Å euvqe,wj poreuqei.j de. Weiss 

Å euvqe,wj de. poreuqei.j Q, f1, 652, 700, pc, 

txt, without interpunction 01*, B, pc, b, g 1 , Or Lat 

it(c, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , h, q, r 1 ), vg mss , Sy-Pal, sa, mae-1 

kai. avpedh,mhsenÅ euvqe,wj de. poreuqei.j "and he went away. Immediately ... 

kai. avpedh,mhsen euvqe,wjÅ poreuqei.j de. "and immediately he went away." 

It is quite probable that originally no de. was present, leaving the sentence 

structure equivocal. By the insertion of de. one or the other option was chosen. 

Matthew uses euvqe,wj only at the beginning of sentences (kai. euvqe,wj 8 times; 

euvqe,wj de. 2 times). euvqe,wj at the end of a sentence appears nowhere in the 

NT. 

The support is slim. 

Weiss: "The euvqe,wj belongs to poreuqei.j, notwithstanding the de. at the third 

position, because the emphasis is in verse 16 on the immediate trade." 


TVU 347 

NA 27 Matthew 25:16 poreuqei.j o` ta. pe,nte ta,lanta labw.n hvrga,sato 

evn auvtoi/j kai. evke,rdhsen a;lla pe,nte\ 

BYZ Matthew 25:16 poreuqei.j de, o` ta. pe,nte ta,lanta labw.n eivrga,sato 

evn auvtoi/j kai. evpoi,hsen a;lla pe,nte ta,lanta\ 

Byz 01*, A C , K, P, W, X, D, 22, 579, 700, 1071, Maj, q, Sy-H, Basil(4 th CE), Tis 

txt 01 C2 , A*, B, C, D, L, Q, f1, 652, f13, 33, 157, 517, 892, 954, 1424, 1675, al, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, Sy-H mg , Co, arm, geo 

A (folio 26, image 005A from CSNTM): The correction in A is not clear. NA has 

evke,rdhsen for A* but Swanson and Tischendorf have evpoi,hsen for A*. From 

the facsimile the letters for evke,rdhsen are visible, but they look somewhat 

compressed and have a different more brownish color. The letters for evpoi,hsen 

would fit the space perfectly. Note that this is the first extant page of the 

codex! 


Lacuna: Sy-C, Sy-S 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 19:18 kai. h=lqen o` deu,teroj le,gwn\ h` mna/ sou( ku,rie( 

evpoi,hsen pe,nte mna/jÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 25:17 w`sau,twj o` ta. du,o evke,rdhsen a;lla du,oÅ 

BYZ Matthew 25:17 w`sau,twj kai. o` ta. du,o evke,rdhsen kai. auvto.j a;lla du,o 

It is quite possible that evpoi,hsen is a harmonization to Lk. 

On the other hand evke,rdhsen could be a conformation to immediate context, 

verse 17. But for a conformation to immediate context would it not be more 

probable that in the second place evke,rdhsen has been changed into evpoi,hsen? 

In verse 17 evke,rdhsen is safe! 


TVU 348 


NA 27 Matthew 25:22 proselqw.n Îde.Ð kai. o` ta. du,o ta,lanta ei=pen\ ku,rie( 

du,o ta,lanta, moi pare,dwkaj\ i;de a;lla du,o ta,lanta evke,rdhsaÅ 

omit P35 vid (3 rd CE), 01*, B, pc, sa, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt 01 C2 , A, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, mae, bo 

omit kai.: U, f1, bo 

P35: The reconstruction given by Min (ANTF 34) p. 74 + 82, makes it quite 

probable that P35 omitted de., even though the relevant part is within a lacuna. 

With such a small word one cannot be certain, though. 

B: no umlaut 

Context verse 20: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:20 kai. proselqw.n o` ta. pe,nte ta,lanta labw.n 

proselqw.n de. A, bo 

NA 27 Matthew 25:24 proselqw.n de. kai. o` to. e]n ta,lanton eivlhfw.j ei=pen\ 

omit kai.: D, a, b, c 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 19:16 parege,neto de. o` prw/toj le,gwn\ 

NA 27 Luke 19:18 kai. h=lqen o` deu,teroj le,gwn\ 

NA 27 Luke 19:20 kai. o` e[teroj h=lqen le,gwn\ 

Possibly the omission is a conformation to context verse 20. 


TVU 349 


NA 27 Matthew 25:29 tw/| ga.r e;conti panti. doqh,setai kai. 

perisseuqh,setai( tou/ de. mh. e;contoj kai. o] e;cei avrqh,setai avpV 

auvtou/ÞÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 25:30 kai. to.n avcrei/on dou/lon evkba,lete eivj to. sko,toj to. 

evxw,teron\ evkei/ e;stai o` klauqmo.j kai. o` brugmo.j tw/n ovdo,ntwn ÞÅ 

Þ tau/ta le,gwn evfw,nei o` e;cwn w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,twÅ 

insert after verse 29: C mg , F C , G, H, M C , Y C , 2, 892 mg , pc 

insert after verse 30: G, W C , f13, 118 C , 713, 1424 C 

f13: no addition by 174, 788(=f13 b ) 

892 mg reads: kai. le,gei tau/ta le,gwn evfw,nei o` e;cwn and then stops. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 


NA 27 Luke 14:35 ou;te eivj gh/n ou;te eivj kopri,an eu;qeto,n evstin( 

e;xw ba,llousin auvto,Å o` e;cwn w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,twÅ 

Just as an example for this typical insertion. Probably inspired from Lk by the 

word evkba,lete. 

579 has this addition at Lk 8:15 (with many), 12:21 (with many), 15:10 (with Q C ), 

16:18 (alone) and 18:8 (alone)! The addition also appears at Lk 21:4. 

Another example is at: 

NA 27 Matthew 13:23 o` de. evpi. th.n kalh.n gh/n sparei,j( ou-to,j evstin o` to.n 

lo,gon avkou,wn kai. suniei,j( o]j dh. karpoforei/ kai. poiei/ o] me.n 

e`kato,n( o] de. e`xh,konta( o] de. tria,konta Þ Å 

Þ o` e;cwn w=ta avkou,ein avkoue,tw 

G, Y C , M, 713 


TVU 350 

NA 27 Matthew 25:31 {Otan de. e;lqh| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evn th/| do,xh| 

auvtou/ kai. pa,ntej oi` a;ggeloi metV auvtou/( to,te kaqi,sei evpi. 

qro,nou do,xhj auvtou/\ 

BYZ Matthew 25:31 {Otan de. e;lqh| o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evn th/| do,xh| 

auvtou/ kai. pa,ntej oi` a[gioi a;ggeloi met auvtou/ to,te kaqi,sei evpi. 

qro,nou do,xhj auvtou/\ 

Byz A, K, P C , W, D, f13, 22, 700, 892, Maj, f, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, P*, f1, 652*, 124(f13), 33, 157, 565, pc, 

Lat, sa, mae-1, bo pt , arm, geo mss , Or, Eus? 

Or: Mt Comm. tom. 16:4 

A. Anderson has 22 for txt. 

Lacuna: C, Sy-C, Sy-S, mae-2 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 8:38 patro.j auvtou/ meta. tw/n avgge,lwn tw/n a`gi,wnÅ 

NA 27 Luke 9:26 kai. tou/ patro.j kai. tw/n a`gi,wn avgge,lwnÅ 

NA 27 Acts 10:22 evcrhmati,sqh u`po. avgge,lou a`gi,ou 

NA 27 Revelation 14:10 kai. qei,w| evnw,pion avgge,lwn a`gi,wn 

Note also: 

NA 27 Matthew 16:27 me,llei ga.r o` uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou e;rcesqai evn th/| 

do,xh| tou/ patro.j auvtou/ meta. tw/n avgge,lwn auvtou/( kai. to,te avpodw,sei 

e`ka,stw| kata. th.n pra/xin auvtou/Å 

avgge,lwn tw/n a`gi,wn C, 1071, 1365, b, Sy-P 

a`gi,wn avgge,lwn D*, 047 

(not in NA!) 

The term a[gioi a;ggeloi is rare in the NT. In Mt it's only here. a;ggeloj 

appears 20 times in Mt. The omission could be due to h.t. OI - OI. The support 

for txt is very good. 




TVU 351 


NA 27 Matthew 25:40 kai. avpokriqei.j o` basileu.j evrei/ auvtoi/j\ avmh.n le,gw 

u`mi/n( evfV o[son evpoih,sate e`ni. tou,twn tw/n avdelfw/n mou tw/n 

evlaci,stwn( evmoi. evpoih,sateÅ 

omit: B*, 0128*, 1424, ff 1 , ff 2 , Sy-Pal ms(B) , Cl pt , Eus, GrNy 

evpoih,sate e`ni. tou. tou,twn avdelfw/n mou 064 

avdelfw/n mou 579 (h.t.) 

tw/n avdelfw/n sa 

tw/n evlaci,stwn mou 118* (sic! duplication) 


In B (p. 1271 A 21) the words are written in the right margin in uncial script, acc. 

to Tischendorf by B 2 and later enhanced by B 3 . 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 25:45 to,te avpokriqh,setai auvtoi/j le,gwn\ avmh.n le,gw 

u`mi/n( evfV o[son ouvk evpoih,sate e`ni. tou,twn tw/n evlaci,stwn( ouvde. 

evmoi. evpoih,sateÅ 

Probably omitted either due to h.t. (tw/n - tw/n, so Weiss) or as a harmonization 

to verse 45. 


TVU 352 



NA 27 Matthew 25:41 to,te evrei/ kai. toi/j evx euvwnu,mwn\ poreu,esqe avpV evmou/ 

Îoi`Ð kathrame,noi eivj to. pu/r to. aivw,nion to. h`toimasme,non tw/| 

diabo,lw| kai. toi/j avgge,loij auvtou/Å 

omit 01, B, L, 0128, 0281, 33, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt A, D, W, Q, 067 vid , f1, f13, 700, 892, Maj 

Tregelles reads txt, but has additionally Îoi`Ð in brackets in the margin. 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

kathrame,noi participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural 

katara,omai "curse, place a curse upon" 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:34 to,te evrei/ o` basileu.j toi/j evk dexiw/n auvtou/\ deu/te oi` 

euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j mou( klhronomh,sate th.n h`toimasme,nhn u`mi/n 

basilei,an avpo. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 25:37 to,te avpokriqh,sontai auvtw/| oi` di,kaioi le,gontej\ 

The article could have been added as a conformation to context, verse 34. 

It is on the other hand possible that it has been omitted as redundant. 

Interestingly in verse 34 the article is safe. 


probably better omit the article. 



TVU 353 


NA 27 Matthew 25:41 to,te evrei/ kai. toi/j evx euvwnu,mwn\ poreu,esqe avpV evmou/ 

Îoi`Ð kathrame,noi eivj to. pu/r to. aivw,nion to. h`toimasme,non tw/| 

diabo,lw| kai. toi/j avgge,loij auvtou/Å 

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the 

eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;" 

o` h`toi,masen o` path,r mou D, f1, 22, it, vg ms , mae-1, Justin, Ir Lat , Or, Cyp 

o` h`toi,masen o` ku,rioj Cl, Tert 

"... which my father prepared for the devil and his angels;" 

Lat(aur, f, l, q, vg) have txt. 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 25:34 to,te evrei/ o` basileu.j toi/j evk dexiw/n auvtou/\ deu/te oi` 

euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j mou( klhronomh,sate th.n h`toimasme,nhn u`mi/n 

basilei,an avpo. katabolh/j ko,smouÅ 

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, 

inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;" 

On the one hand it is possible, though improbable that the explicit "which my 

father prepared" has been softened to the less explicit passive participle. 

On the other hand the construction could be a harmonization to verse 34. 


TVU 354 


NA 27 Matthew 25:42 evpei,nasa ga.r kai. ouvk evdw,kate, moi fagei/n( 

evdi,yhsa kai. ouvk evpoti,sate, me( 


fagei/n kai. P45 vid , B*, L, Sy-P, aeth, [WH] 

txt 01, A, B C3 , D, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, NA 25 , Weiss 

P45: Doubtful. Reconstruction by Min (ANTF 34, p. 114): ouk 

non twi diabolwi kai toi]s agg[eloisautou ep]einasa gar kai edwkat[e 

moi fagein kai] ediyhsa kai ouk [epotisate] me xenos hmhn kai [ou 

sunhgagete m]e kai gumnos hm[hn kai ou p]eriebalete me asqen[hs 

WH has fagei/n Îkai.Ð 

Lacuna: C 

B: p. 1271 A 31, the kai is left unenhanced. 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 25:35 evpei,nasa ga.r kai. evdw,kate, moi fagei/n( 

evdi,yhsa kai. evpoti,sate, me( xe,noj h;mhn kai. sunhga,gete, me( 

add kai.: W, D, Sy-H, Sy-P 

The addition of kai. is only natural (compare verse 35). There is no reason for an 

omission. 


TVU 355 

NA 27 Matthew 26:3 To,te sunh,cqhsan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi 

tou/ laou/ eivj th.n auvlh.n tou/ avrciere,wj tou/ legome,nou Kai?a,fa 

BYZ Matthew 26:3 To,te sunh,cqhsan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j kai. 

oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ eivj th.n auvlh.n tou/ avrciere,wj tou/ legome,nou 

Kai?a,fa 

Byz K, P, D, 0255, 22, Maj, it(c, f, ff 2 , h, q, r 1 ), Sy-P, Sy-H 

kai. oi` Farisai/oi W 

txt P45, 01, A, B, D, L, Q, 0293, f1, 652, f13, 33 vid , 565, 700, 892, 1424, pc, 

Lat(a, aur, b, d, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), Sy-S, Co(+ mae-2) 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:4 pa,ntaj tou.j avrcierei/j kai. grammatei/j tou/ laou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 16:21 tw/n presbute,rwn kai. avrciere,wn kai. grammate,wn 

NA 27 Matthew 20:18 toi/j avrciereu/sin kai. grammateu/sin 

NA 27 Matthew 21:15 oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j 


NA 27 Matthew 21:45 oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi 

and many more... 

A common term, a natural addition. The support is very bad. 


TVU 356 

NA 27 Matthew 26:9 evdu,nato ga.r tou/to praqh/nai pollou/ kai. 

doqh/nai ptwcoi/jÅ 

BYZ Matthew 26:9 hvdu,nato ga.r tou/to to. mu,ron praqh/nai pollou/ kai. 

doqh/nai ptwcoi/j 


Byz E, F, G, H, K, G, 0255, f13, 22, 33, 579, 700, 1241, 1424, Maj-part, c, q 

txt P45 vid , 01, A, B, D, L, W, D, Q, P, 0293, f1, 652*, 517, 565, 892, 1675, 

Maj-part, Lat, Sy, Co(+ mae-2), Basil(4 th CE) 

Q omits also tou/to. 

P45: Deduction from space. The relevant line reads: 

h apwleia auth] edu[nato gar touto praqh]nai pollou kai d[oqh 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 14:5 hvdu,nato ga.r tou/to to. mu,ron praqh/nai evpa,nw dhnari,wn 

triakosi,wn kai. doqh/nai toi/j ptwcoi/j\ kai. evnebrimw/nto auvth/|Å 

NA 27 John 12:5 dia. ti, tou/to to. mu,ron ouvk evpra,qh triakosi,wn 

dhnari,wn kai. evdo,qh ptwcoi/jÈ 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:7 prosh/lqen auvtw/| gunh. e;cousa avla,bastron mu,rou 

baruti,mou kai. kate,ceen evpi. th/j kefalh/j auvtou/ avnakeime,nouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:12 balou/sa ga.r au[th to. mu,ron tou/to evpi. tou/ sw,mato,j 

mou pro.j to. evntafia,sai me evpoi,hsenÅ 

Again a natural addition from context and Mk. Also bad support. 


TVU 357 



NA 27 Matthew 26:20 VOyi,aj de. genome,nhj avne,keito meta. tw/n dw,dekaÅ 

dw,deka maqhtw/n 01, A, L, W, D, Q, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, 

Maj-part[M, D, P ], L844, Lat, Sy-H, sa-mss, mae, bo, 

Basil(4 th CE), [WH], [NA 25 ], Bois, Gre, SBL 

txt P37 vid , P45 vid , B, D, f1, 652, f13, 28, 565, 579, 700, 

Maj-part[K, U, G, W], L2211, 

d, Sy-S, sa-mss, Eus, Weiss, Trg 

maqhtw/n auvtou/ 074(=064), 0281, pc, it, vg Cl , Sy-P 

P45: Deduction from space. The relevant line reads: 

nomenhsanekeitom[etatwndwdekakaiesqiontwneipenamhn 


B: no umlaut 

Compare complete discussion at 20:17! 

Weiss thinks that it has probably been added from 11:1 or 20:17. 

Metzger: "As in the case of 20:17, the reading ... is doubtful. In the present 

verse the weight of the external evidence seems to favor the shorter reading." 


either both times in brackets in text or both times in apparatus.

TVU 358 

NA 27 Matthew 26:28 tou/to ga,r evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j 

diaqh,khj to. peri. pollw/n evkcunno,menon eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 26:28 tou/to ga,r evstin to. ai-ma, mou to. th/j kainh/j 

diaqh,khj to. peri. pollw/n evkcuno,menon eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n 

Byz A, C, D, K, P, W, D, f1, f13, 700, 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, sa, bo, Trg 

txt P37(300 CE), P45 vid (3 rd CE), 01, B, L, Z, Q, 33, pc, bo ms , mae-1, Ir arm 

P45: The reading is within a lacuna, but from space consideration it is very 

probable. Here is the reconstruction by K.S. Min (ANTF 34, p. 117): 

l]abwn to pothri[o]n k[ai eucaris]thsas [edwken autois legwn pi 

e]te ex autou pantes [touto e]stin to [aima mou ths diaqhkhs 

to peri p]ollwn ekcu[nnomenon eis af]esin [amartiwn legw 

Lacuna: Sy-C, mae-2 

B: no umlaut (but one line above: pa,ntej( 28 tou/to ga,r evstin) 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 14:24 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ tou/to, evstin to. ai-ma, mou 

th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ 

BYZ Mark 14:24 to. th/j kainh/j diaqh,khj 

Byz A, f1, f13, 579, 700, 892, 2509*, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa pt , bo pt 

txt 01, B, C, D, L, W, Q, Y, 0211, 565, 2509 C , d, (ff 2 ), k, sa pt , bo pt 

NA 27 Luke 22:20 kai. to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai( le,gwn\ 

tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evn tw/| ai[mati, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n 

evkcunno,menonÅ omit kainh. Sy-P ms , Marcion 

Compare: 

NA 27 1 Corinthians 11:25 w`sau,twj kai. to. poth,rion meta. to. deipnh/sai 

le,gwn\ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evsti.n evn tw/| evmw/| ai[mati\ 

tou/to poiei/te( o`sa,kij eva.n pi,nhte( eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ 

The term has possibly been inserted for liturgical reasons. Possibly it was a 

harmonization to Lk. There is no reason for an omission. That Marcion is 

responsible for the omission is improbable.

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) writes: 

"[kainh/j] is indispensable, so that a contradiction may be emphasized to Exod 

24:8 ivdou. to. ai-ma th/j diaqh,khj h-j die,qeto ku,rioj pro.j u`ma/j. By a plain 

th/j diaqh,khj the Mosaic law would have been understood. I presume kainh/j 

was discarded by those theologians who would not admit that any other diaqh,kh 

existed save the one delivered by Christ." 


TVU 359 





e[wj a'n D, K, P, L, W, D, Q, f1, f13, 157, 565, al, Chrys txt 

e[wj 01, C, 0281, 22, 28, 33, 700, 892, 1424, pc, Chrys Com 

e[wj ou- a'n P53?(3 rd CE), A, 713, pc 

txt B, 067, 124, 579, 1071, Maj 

WH have ou- in brackets 

P53: According to Sanders (Festschrift Lake, 1937), P53 reads: 

tÐaÎij autou kaqisateÐ... autoëuë eëÎwj 

oëu aënë aëÎpelqwn ekei pÐroseuxëÎw 

K.S. Min (ANTF 34, p. 154) gives: 

) ÐaÎ Ð aëuëtëoëuë eëÎwj 

oÐu aënë aëÎpelqwn ekei pÐrëoseuxëÎw 

From what I can see on the quite good published image (online), this 

reconstruction is doubtful. oÐu aëpëeëÎlqwn equally fits. Compare the letters ape 

of avpV evmou/ in line 33 (verse 39). 


Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 1:25 kai. ouvk evgi,nwsken auvth.n e[wj ou- e;teken uiò,n\ 




e[wj 01, B, C, L, 892 

e[wj ou- D, K, P, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, Maj 



omit ou-: B, 579 vid , 892, pc

A curious mixture. The occurrences of e[wj ou- at Mt 13:33, 14:22, 17:9 are safe. 

Compare fuller discussion at 1:25. Since B omits ou- or a'n several times, its 

testimony for the presence of ou- here is comparatively significant. 


TVU 360 


NA 27 Matthew 26:39 kai. proelqw.n mikro.n e;pesen evpi. pro,swpon auvtou/ 

proseuco,menoj kai. le,gwn\ pa,ter mou( eiv dunato,n evstin( parelqa,tw 

avpV evmou/ to. poth,rion tou/to\ plh.n ouvc w`j evgw. qe,lw avllV w`j su, Þ Å 

Þ Luke 22:43-44 ÎÎw;fqh de. auvtw/| a;ggeloj avpV ouvranou/ evniscu,wn 

auvto,nÅ 44 kai. geno,menoj evn avgwni,a| evktene,steron proshu,ceto\ kai. 

evge,neto o` i`drw.j auvtou/ w`sei. qro,mboi ai[matoj katabai,nontej evpi. th.n 

gh/nÅ $kai. avnasta.j avpo. th/j proseuch/j ---C mg , 713-only%ÐÐ 

C mg , f13, 713, pc 

The following manuscripts have a reference to the passage in the margin: 

C, M, 118, 700, pc 

Of f13 only 174 and 230 omit the words here. They have them in Lk only. 

Manuscript 13 has a lacuna in Mt. C has a lacuna in Lk. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Clearly from lectionary usage, where this Lukan passage is surrounded by 

readings from Matthew. 

Readings for Thursday of the Holy Week: 

Jo 13:12-17, Mt 26:21-39, Lk 22:43-44, Mt 26:40-27:2, 1Co 11:23-32 

The verses are disputed in Lk. See Lk of this commentary for a detailed 

discussion of the verses. 

Compare: 

T. van Lopik "Once again: Floating words …" NTS 41 (1995) 286-291 

For 713 compare: 

J. Rendel Harris "Cod. Ev. 561: Codex Algerinae Peckover" Journal of the 

Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 6 (1886) 79-89 


TVU 361 

TVU 362 

NA 27 Matthew 26:42 pa,lin evk deute,rou avpelqw.n proshu,xato le,gwn\ 

pa,ter mou( eiv ouv du,natai tou/to parelqei/n eva.n 

mh. auvto. pi,w( genhqh,tw to. qe,lhma, souÅ 

BYZ Matthew 26:42 pa,lin evk deute,rou avpelqw.n proshu,xato le,gwn 

Pa,ter mou eiv ouv du,natai tou/to to. poth.rion parelqei/n avpV evmou/( eva.n 

mh. auvto. pi,w genhqh,tw to. qe,lhma, sou 

tou/to to. poth.rion parelqei/n avpV evmou/( K, P C , 579, 22, Maj, 

to. poth.rion tou/to parelqei/n avpV evmou/( f13 a,c 

tou/to parelqei/n avpV evmou/ to. poth.rion D*, 157 

f, vg mss , bo, mae-2 

tou/to parelqei/n avpV evmou/( A, C, W, DC , P*, 174(f13), 565, 

1071, ff 2 , q, Sy-H 

tou/to to. poth.rion parelqei/n Q, 700, 892, 1424, Lat, Sy-S, 

Sy-P, mae-1 

to. poth.rion tou/to parelqei/n D, 69, 788(=f13 b ) 

tou/to parelqei/n P37(300 CE), 01, B, L, f1, 652, 

33 vid , b, vg ms , sa, Or 

D: There is a brown line through the words to. poth.rion (p. 115, fourth line 

from bottom). Probably not accidental since such a correction appears elsewhere 

in the manuscript (compare p. 81 or 109). 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

When considered as two separate variants, this looks: 

to. poth.rion 

Byz D, D*, Q, f13, 22, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, bo 

txt P37, 01, A, B, C, L, W, f1, 652, 33, 565, 1010, pc, Sy-H, sa 

avpV evmou/( 

Byz A, C, W, D, (f13), 22, Maj, Sy-H, bo 

txt P37, 01, B, D, L, Q, f1, 652, (f13), 33, 700, 892, 1424, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, sa 

(f13 divided)

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:39 pa,ter mou( eiv dunato,n evstin( parelqa,tw avpV evmou/ 

to. poth,rion tou/to\ plh.n ouvc w`j evgw. qe,lw avllV w`j su,Å 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:36 pare,negke to. poth,rion tou/to avpV evmou/\ avllV ouv ti, evgw. 

qe,lw avlla. ti, su,Å 

NA 27 Mark 14:39 

kai. pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw,nÅ 

And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 

NA 27 Luke 22:42 eiv bou,lei pare,negke tou/to to. poth,rion avpV evmou/\ 

Both additions if not original are natural additions to harmonize the words with 

the immediate context of verse 39. 

From the variation of the readings it appears that first either to. poth.rion or 

avpV evmou/ have been added independently to the text. 

There is no reason why these words could have been omitted. 




TVU 363 


NA 27 Matthew 26:44 kai. avfei.j auvtou.j 

pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n pa,linÅ 

txt 01, B, L, bo, Diatess Arab 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

C, f13-part, 28, 33, 892, Lat(c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, q, vg), mae 1+2 , sa, Trg 

pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

D, it(b, d, ff 2 , r 1 ) 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n pa,linÅ 

P37 vid (300 CE), a 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n pa,linÅ 

Q, 124(f13), Sy-S 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

13, 174, 788(=f13-part), 118, 700 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

f1, 652 

avpelqw.n pa,lin proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

(W, D), 22, 579, 1241, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato pa,lin ... W, D, Sy-H 

avpelqw.n proshu,xato pa,lin to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n Å 

A, K, P, 157, 565, (1424)

Minority variant: 

omit 1. pa,lin P37 vid , Q, f1, 652, f13, 700, pc, Sy-S, Sy-Pal ms(C) 


omit evk tri,tou P37 vid , A, D, K, P, f1, 652, 157, 565, 1424, al, it 

Majority variant: 

omit 2. pa,lin A, C, D, W, f1, 652, f13, 33, 892, Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, mae 1+2 

txt P37, 01, B, L, Q, 124, pc, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, bo 

P37 reads: 

euren]autous kaqeudontas hsan gar autwn oi o[fqalmoi 

bebar ] hmenoi kai afeis autous apelqwn pros[huxato palin 

ton au]ton logon eipwn palin tote ercetai pr[o]s t[ous ma 

qhta]s kai legei autois kaqeudete to loipon kai ana[paue 

Sanders (ed.pr. 1926), Comfort (2001) and Min (ANTF 34, 2005) reconstruct 

without pa,lin. NA notes P37 for the omission as "vid". evk tri,tou is too long 

for the space in the right lacuna, but palin would fit in principle (this have A, 

K, P et al.). But it would generate a singular reading which also is awkward 

stylistically: avpelqw.n proshu,xato pa,lin to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw.n pa,linÅ 

It cannot be ruled out completely though. 

The reconstruction by Min (ANTF 34, p. 110) makes the reading without pa,lin 

quite certain. 

Compare: 


pa,lin evk deute,rou avpelqw.n proshu,xato le,gwn \ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:39 kai. 

pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato to.n auvto.n lo,gon eivpw,n Å 

40 kai. pa,lin evlqw.n eu-ren auvtou.j kaqeu,dontaj( 

41 kai. e;rcetai to. tri,ton ...

It has been suggested to take the second pa,lin with the next verse: 

43 kai. evlqw.n pa,lin eu-ren auvtou.j kaqeu,dontaj ... 

44 kai. avfei.j auvtou.j pa,lin avpelqw.n proshu,xato evk tri,tou to.n auvto.n 

lo,gon eivpw.nÅ 

pa,lin 45 to,te e;rcetai pro.j tou.j maqhta.j kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ 

Mark: 

35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed 

37 He came and found them sleeping; 

39 And again he went away and prayed 

40 And once more he came and found them sleeping 

Missing 

41 He came a third time and said to them, 

Matthew: 

39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed 

40 Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; 

42 Again he went away for the second time and prayed 

43 Again he came and found them sleeping 

44 So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time 

45 Then he came to the disciples and said 

The verse 44 in Mt is not present in Mk: That he left them a third time. So our 

verse is either inserted by Mt or it's a later addition. There is no witness for a 

complete omission though. 

Difficult. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 156) suggests that the last pa,lin has been omitted 

because Jesus didn't speak exactly the same words. 


TVU 364 



NA 27 Matthew 26:45 to,te e;rcetai pro.j tou.j maqhta.j kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ 

kaqeu,dete Îto.Ð loipo.n kai. avnapau,esqe\ ivdou. h;ggiken h` w[ra kai. o` 

uiò.j tou/ avnqrw,pou paradi,dotai eivj cei/raj a`martwlw/nÅ 

omit loipo.n B, C, L, W, 2, 892, 1241, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt to. loipo.n P37(300 CE), 01, A, D, Q, f1, f13, 700, Maj, [Trg] 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:41 kaqeu,dete to. loipo.n kai. avnapau,esqe\ 

BYZ Mark 14:41 Kaqeu,dete loipo.n kai. avnapau,esqe\ 

Byz loipo.n A, C, D, L, W, Y, 2, 28, 892, Maj-part[E, F, S, X], Trg 

txt to. loipo.n 01, B, D, Q, f1, f13, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, 1424, 

L844, Maj-part[G, H, K, P, M, N, U, Y, G], 

[WH], NA 25 , Weiss 

An idiomatic expression. Difficult to judge on internal grounds. 

Robertson (Wordpictures) writes: "This use of loipo.n for 'now or henceforth' 

is common in the papyri." 

BDAG notes: "kaqeu,dete to. loipo,n, which is variously interpreted, conveys a 

mild rebuke: 'you are still sleeping!' or: 'do you intend to sleep on and on?'; 

the expression is prob. colloquial and is succinctly rendered by numerous 

versions: 'Still asleep?' Mt 26:45; Mk 14:41. Also poss. for this pass.: 

'meanwhile, you are sleeping!' 'you are sleeping in the meantime?' (so to. l. 

Jos., Ant. 18, 272) w. the sense: 'A fine time you've chosen to sleep!' " 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) comes to the conclusion that the words are not a question and 

not ironical, but spoken "permitting, in a resigning way". 

to. loipo.n appears only here in the Gospels, loipo.n alone appears 11 times. 

The external support is in both cases very evenly divided. 


TVU 365 

NA 27 Matthew 26:59 oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. to. 

sune,drion o[lon evzh,toun yeudomarturi,an kata. tou/ VIhsou/ o[pwj auvto.n 

qanatw,swsin( 

BYZ Matthew 26:59 oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi kai. to. 

sune,drion o[lon evzh,toun yeudomarturi,an kata. tou/ VIhsou/ o[pwj 

qanatw,swsin auvto.n 

Byz A, C, W, D, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892 C , Maj, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal 

txt 01, B, D, L, Q, 69, 788(=f13 b ), 892*, pc, Lat, (Sy-S) Co(+ mae-2), Or 

892: The words have been added in the margin. 

Sy-S reads only: kai. to. sune,drion o[lon evzh,toun … 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:53 oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi kai. oi` grammatei/jÅ 

NA 27 Mark 14:55 Oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. o[lon to. sune,drion evzh,toun kata. 

tou/ VIhsou/ marturi,an eivj to. qanatw/sai auvto,n( kai. ouvc hu[riskon\ 

Compare: 


NA 27 Matthew 27:1 pa,ntej oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi tou/ laou/ 

NA 27 Matthew 27:3 toi/j avrciereu/sin kai. presbute,roij 

NA 27 Matthew 27:12 u`po. tw/n avrciere,wn kai. presbute,rwn 

NA 27 Matthew 27:20 Oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi 

oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi is a common term in the Mt. But there is 

no reason why it should have been omitted here. It is again mentioned in 27:1, 3, 

12 and 20. Probably a harmonization to immediate context. 

Compare with 26:3, where kai. oi` grammatei/j has been added. 


TVU 366 

TVU 367 

NA 27 Matthew 26:59 Oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. to. sune,drion o[lon evzh,toun 

yeudomarturi,an kata. tou/ VIhsou/ o[pwj auvto.n qanatw,swsin( 

26:60 kai. ouvc eu-ron 

pollw/n proselqo,ntwn yeudomartu,rwnÅ 

u[steron de. proselqo,ntej du,o 

BYZ Matthew 26:59 oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi kai. to. 

sune,drion o[lon evzh,toun yeudomarturi,an kata. tou/ VIhsou/ o[pwj 

qanatw,swsin auvto.n 

26:60 kai. ouvc eu-ron Þ D,it Å 

kai. pollw/n yeudomartu,rwn proselqo,ntwn ouvc eu-ronÅ 

u[steron de. proselqo,ntej du,o yeudoma,rturej 

kai. ... ouvc eu-ron 

Byz A, C C , D, W, D, 1582 C , f13, 22, 33, 700, 892, Maj, 

it(a, c, d, f, ff 2 , h, n, q), (Sy-S), Sy-H 

kai. ouvc eu-ron to. e`xh/j D, it (both times!) 

Sy-S reads acc. to Burkitt: 

"And there came many witnesses of falsehood, and they could not take the truth." (the last 

phrase is partly illegible). 

txt 01, B, C*, L, N*, Q, f1, pc, Lat(aur, b, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Or 

Swanson has f1 correctly for txt, against NA and Lake! K. Witte from Muenster 

confirms that Swanson is right. 1582* reads txt and has been corrected by a 

later hand to the Byzantine readings. According to Anderson, 1, 118, 209 and 

1582 omit ouvc eu-ron. 

du.o yeudoma,rturej 

Byz (A), C, D, (W), D, 652 mg , f13, 22, 33, 892, 1582 C , Maj, Latt, Sy-H, (Sy-S) 

A* vid has ma,rturej 

N, W, 157, 1241, pc, Sy-S: tinej yeudoma,rturej 

txt 01, B, L, Q, f1, 652*, 124(f13), pc, Sy-P, Co 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: has only an umlaut for the word order yeudomartu,rwn proselqo,ntwn 

(line 41 B, p. 1273)

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:56-57 polloi. ga.r evyeudomartu,roun katV auvtou/( kai. i;sai 

ai` marturi,ai ouvk h=sanÅ 57 kai, tinej avnasta,ntej evyeudomartu,roun 

katV auvtou/ le,gontej 

The addition of kai. plus the second ouvc eu-ron were probably intended to 

make a new complete sentence. 

In the second case the yeudoma,rturej does not really makes sense, because 

what they say in verse 61 is no lie. So the ma,rturej of A* makes some sense. 

The D reading kai. ouvc eu-ron to. e`xh/j is strange. There is no parallel for it. 

Similarly some Old Latins: h: "… exitum rei … in eo quicquam" 

c, r 1 : "… - - - … in eo quicquam" 

d: "… sequentia … rei sequentia" 

ff 2 : "… exitum … quicquam in eo" 

a: "… - - - … exitum rei" 

f: "… - - - … culpam" 

C.W. Conrad writes on the Bgreek mailinglist (25 th Sept. 2003): 

"In L&N and in BDAG I find only THi hEXHS hHMERAi and EN TWi hEXHS (CRONWi), but LSJ 

shows a considerably history for the adverbial expression going back as far as Homer; one item 

is: 3. Gramm., TO hEXHS grammatical sequence, opp. HUPERBATON, A.D. Pron .41.3,al.; KAI TA 

hEXHS, Lat. et cetera, PTeb. 319.34 (iii A. D.), etc. 

From this I think it may not be an unreasonable conjecture that OUC hEURON TO hEXHS means 

something like, 'and they couldn't find the logical connection' or (using ECW as a not uncommon 

equivalent of DUNAMAI): 'they were unable to put it all together.' " 

Regarding the Latin: " 'rei sequentia' and 'exitum rei' (at least) do seem to represent something 

like what I suggested about TO hEXHS." 




TVU 368 


NA 27 Matthew 26:63 o` de. VIhsou/j evsiw,paÅ kai. o` avrciereu.j ei=pen auvtw/|\ 

evxorki,zw se kata. tou/ qeou/ tou/ zw/ntoj i[na h`mi/n ei;ph|j eiv su. ei= o` 

cristo.j o` uiò.j tou/ qeou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 26:63 o` de. VIhsou/j evsiw,pa kai. avpokriqei,j o` avrciereu.j 

ei=pen auvtw/| VExorki,zw se kata. tou/ qeou/ tou/ zw/ntoj i[na h`mi/n ei;ph|j 

eiv su. ei= o` Cristo.j o` uiò.j tou/ qeou/ 

siwpa,w "be silent or quiet" 

Byz A, C, (D), W, D, 22, 157, 565, (579), 700, Maj, 

it(a, b, c, d, f, ff 2 , h, n, q, r 1 ), Sy, mae-2 

avpokriqei,j ou=n o` avrciereu.j D, U 

kai. avpokriqei,j 579 

txt 01, B, G, L, Z, Q, f1, f13, 33, 517, 892, 954, 1424, 1675, pc, 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), Co, Or 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:62 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen\ evgw, eivmi( 

avpokriqei.j le,gei auvtw/|\ D, Q, 565, pc, it, arm, geo, Or 

avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtw/|\ G, W, f1, f13, 1071 

It can be argued that avpokriqei,j is not appropriate here, because "Jesus was 

silent" before. 

Interestingly the same variant also appears in Mk, possibly a harmonization to 

the Byzantine text of Mt, but the witnesses are not the same. 




TVU 369 


NA 27 Matthew 26:64 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ su. ei=paj Å 

Þ o[ti evgw, eivmi D, arab MS 

quod ego sum d 

D: page 118 of the online images. 

B: no umlaut 

A question of punctuation and interpretation: 

Jesus said to him, "You have said so (and it is not true)." 

Jesus said to him, "You have said so (and yes, it is true)." 

Jesus said to him, "You, actually YOU say this?" 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 14:61-62 kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ su. ei= o` cristo.j o` uiò.j tou/ 

euvloghtou/È 62 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen\ evgw, eivmi( 

NA 27 Mark 15:2 Kai. evphrw,thsen auvto.n o` Pila/toj\ su. ei= o` basileu.j 

tw/n VIoudai,wnÈ o` de. avpokriqei.j auvtw/| le,gei\ su. le,geijÅ 

NA 27 Luke 23:3 o` de. Pila/toj hvrw,thsen auvto.n le,gwn\ su. ei= o` basileu.j 

tw/n VIoudai,wnÈ o` de. avpokriqei.j auvtw/| e;fh\ su. le,geijÅ 

28: su. lela,lhkaj o[ti evgw, eivmi 

NA 27 John 18:37 ei=pen ou=n auvtw/| o` Pila/toj\ ouvkou/n basileu.j ei= su,È 

avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j\ su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmiÅ 

Compare: 

• J. Irmscher "Su legeij" Studii Classice 2 (1960) 151-8 

• D.R. Catchpole "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas" NTS 17 (1970/71) 

213-26 [who argues for an affirmative answer: "affirmative in 

content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation."] 


TVU 370 


NA 27 Matthew 26:70 o` de. hvrnh,sato e;mprosqen pa,ntwn le,gwn\ ouvk oi=da 

ti, le,geij Þ Å 

Þ ouvde, evpi,stamai D, D, f1, 652, it(a, b, n, r 1 ), Sy-S, Sy-Pal, arab MS 

neque intellego b, r 1 

nec novi a, n (cp. Mt 26:72) 

f1: ouvk oi=da o` le,geij … 

Tis/Legg add: 090 

In D, interestingly, no Latin is given above these words. This is unusual. Compare 

page 119 in the online edition. 

22 reads txt. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:68 o` de. hvrnh,sato le,gwn\ ou;te oi=da ou;te evpi,stamai su. ti, 

le,geijÅ kai. evxh/lqen e;xw eivj to. proau,lion Îkai. avle,ktwr evfw,nhsenÐÅ 

Harmonization to Mk. 


TVU 371 


NA 27 Matthew 26:73 meta. mikro.n de. Þ proselqo,ntej oi` e`stw/tej ei=pon 

tw/| Pe,trw|\ avlhqw/j kai. su. evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r h` lalia, sou dh/lo,n 

se poiei/Å 


Þ pa,lin f1, 652, 157, 517, 954, 1071, 1424, 1675, al, mae-1 (not mae-2) 

22 reads txt. 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:70 o` de. pa,lin hvrnei/toÅ kai. meta. mikro.n pa,lin oi` 

parestw/tej e;legon tw/| Pe,trw|\ avlhqw/j evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r 

Galilai/oj ei=Å 

Harmonization to Mk. 


TVU 372 



NA 27 Matthew 26:73 meta. mikro.n de. proselqo,ntej oi` e`stw/tej ei=pon tw/| 

Pe,trw|\ avlhqw/j kai. su. evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r h` lalia, sou dh/lo,n se 

poiei/Å 

avlhqw/j evx auvtw/n ei= D, Q, f1, pc, Sy-S, sa ms 

Only 1, 1582 omit. 652 (=f1) is not noted for the omission in R. Champlin (Family 

Pi in Matthew, 1964, Studies and Documents 24). 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:69 kai. su. h=sqa meta. VIhsou/ tou/ Galilai,ouÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:71 ou-toj h=n meta. VIhsou/ tou/ Nazwrai,ouÅ 

NA 27 Mark 14:67 kai. su. meta. tou/ Nazarhnou/ h=sqa tou/ VIhsou/Å 

NA 27 Mark 14:69 o[ti ou-toj evx auvtw/n evstinÅ 

NA 27 Mark 14:70 avlhqw/j evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r Galilai/oj ei=Å 

NA 27 Luke 22:56 kai. ou-toj su.n auvtw/| h=nÅ 

NA 27 Luke 22:58 kai. su. evx auvtw/n ei=Å 

NA 27 Luke 22:59 evpV avlhqei,aj kai. ou-toj metV auvtou/ h=n( 

NA 27 John 18:17 mh. kai. su. evk tw/n maqhtw/n ei= tou/ avnqrw,pou tou,touÈ 

NA 27 John 18:25 kai. su. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei=È 

NA 27 John 18:26 ouvk evgw, se ei=don evn tw/| kh,pw| metV auvtou/È 

The question is if it is a harmonization to Mk (who omits kai. su. here) or if it is 

a harmonization to immediate context or the other parallels. kai. su. would be a 

natural addition. D, Q, f1 are excellent witnesses here. That a harmonization to 

Mk is possible is shown by C* which adds kai. ga.r Galilai/oj ei= in Mt before 

kai. ga.r h` lalia,. 

The support is similar to that of Mt 25:1 (D, Q, f1, 124*, pc, Latt, Sy). 


TVU 373 



NA 27 Matthew 26:73 avlhqw/j kai. su. evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r h` lalia, sou 

dh/lo,n se poiei/Å 

o`moia,zei D, it(a, b, c, ff 2 , h, n), Sy-S 

similis est 

txt have: aur, f, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg 

kai. ga.r Galilai/oj ei= kai. h` lalia, sou dh/lo,n se poiei/ C* (from Mk) 

L omits due to h.t. (auvtw/n ei= … poiei/). 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 14:70 avlhqw/j evx auvtw/n ei=( kai. ga.r Galilai/oj ei=Å 

BYZ Mark 14:70 VAlhqw/j evx auvtw/n ei= kai. ga.r Galilai/oj ei= 

kai. h` lalia, sou o`moia,zeiÅ 

Byz A, K, P, D, Q, f13, 28, 33, 157, 1071, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt 

txt 01, B, C, D, L, Y, f1, 565, 700, 1342, pc, Lat, Sy-S, sa, bo pt , Eus 

Nestle thinks it is original. dh/lo,n se poiei/ "is the language of the 

diorqwth,j". 

It has been suggested that it's a conformation to the Byzantine text of Mk 

14:70. But the "Western" reading must be very old, therefore it is more 

probable that the Byzantine reading in Mk took o`moia,zei from the Western 

text in Mt and not that the Western text took it from a (then very early) 

Byzantine correction in Mk. 

But even though this is MORE probable, it is the question if it is also more 

probable than that the Byzantine reading in Mk is original! All possibilities have 

problems. 

See complete discussion at Mk 14:70 ! 


TVU 374 



NA 27 Matthew 27:3 To,te ivdw.n VIou,daj o` paradidou.j auvto.n o[ti 

katekri,qh( metamelhqei.j e;streyen ta. tria,konta avrgu,ria toi/j 

avrciereu/sin kai. presbute,roij 

paradou.j B, L, 0281 vid , 33, pc, Co, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg, Bal 

txt paradidou.j 01, A, C, W, Q, f1, f13, Maj, Eus, WH mg , Tis 

892: omits o` paradidou.j auvto.n. 

Lacuna: D 

B: no umlaut 

paradidou.j participle present active nominative masculine singular 

paradou.j participle aorist active nominative masculine singular 

ivdw.n participle aorist active nominative masculine singular 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:25 avpokriqei.j de. VIou,daj o` paradidou.j auvto.n ei=pen\ 

NA 27 Matthew 26:46 evgei,resqe a;gwmen\ ivdou. h;ggiken o` paradidou,j me 

NA 27 Matthew 26:48 o` de. paradidou.j auvto.n e;dwken auvtoi/j shmei/on 

NA 27 Matthew 27:4 le,gwn\ h[marton paradou.j ai-ma avqw/|onÅ 

all safe! 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 10:4 kai. VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj o` kai. paradou.j auvto,nÅ 

paradidou.j F, X, D, pc 

pare,dwken L, f13, 1424, pc 

NA 27 Mark 14:42 evgei,resqe a;gwmen\ ivdou. o` paradidou,j me h;ggikenÅ 

safe! 

NA 27 Mark 14:44 dedw,kei de. o` paradidou.j auvto.n su,sshmon auvtoi/j 

paradou.j G 

NA 27 John 18:2 :Hidei de. kai. VIou,daj o` paradidou.j auvto.n to.n to,pon 

NA 27 John 18:5 ei`sth,kei de. kai. VIou,daj o` paradidou.j auvto.n metV auvtw/nÅ 

NA 27 John 21:20 ti,j evstin o` paradidou,j seÈ 

all safe! 

NA 27 John 19:11 dia. tou/to o` paradou,j me, soi mei,zona a`marti,an e;ceiÅ 

paradidou.j A, D sup , K, P, L, W, Y, f1, 124, 33, 157, Maj

In Mt the first occurrence in chapter 10 is paradou.j. But then in chapter 26 all 

three occurrences are paradidou.j and all are safe. It is possible that 

paradidou.j is a conformation to preceding context. 

On the other hand it is possible that paradou.j is a conformation in tense to the 

immediately preceding ivdw.n or to the following paradou.j (in verse 4). 

It should be noted that now (in 27:3 and 4) Jesus has already been delivered. It 

is possible that this stimulated a change in tense. 

Difficult! 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) notes that there is a deliberate relation between paradou.j 

and metamelhqei.j. 


TVU 375 




di,kaion B C1 , L, Q, 

iustum Latt, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, Co, mae-1+2, arm, geo, Or, Cyp, WH, Trg mg 

txt 01, A, B*, C, W, X, D, f1, f13, 33, 579, 700, 892, Maj, 

Sy-P, Sy-H, sa ms , bo ms , Eus, Chrys, WH mg 


B p. 1274 A, last line: di,kaion is written in the right margin. avqw/|on is enhanced 

and has accents, so too has di,kaion. No cancellation is visible. Looks as if it has 

been noted as an alternative. Acc. to Tischendorf a vertical wave is visible above 

both words (for exchange), but this is difficult to make out in the facsimile. 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 



Zacari,ou uiòu/ Baraci,ou( o]n evfoneu,sate metaxu. tou/ naou/ kai. tou/ 

qusiasthri,ouÅ 

Compare 27:19: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:19 mhde.n soi. kai. tw/| dikai,w| evkei,nw|\ 

Compare also Mt 27:24 below: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:24 avqw/|o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou,tou\ u`mei/j o;yesqeÅ 

BYZ Matthew 27:24 avqw/|o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou/ dikai,ou tou,tou\ 

u`mei/j o;yesqeÅ 

Byz 01, (A), L, W, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa mss , mae-1+2, bo, WH mg 

txt B, D, Q, pc, it, Sy-S, sa mss , Or Lat , WH, NA 25

Compare LXX: ai-ma di,kaion appears 4 times: 

LXX Proverbs 6:17 cei/rej evkce,ousai ai-ma dikai,ou 

... and hands that shed innocent blood 

LXX Joel 4:19 w-n evxe,cean ai-ma di,kaion evn th/| gh/| auvtw/n 

"in whose land they have shed innocent blood." 

LXX Jonah 1:14 kai. mh. dw/|j evfV h`ma/j ai-ma di,kaion 

"Do not make us guilty of innocent blood" 

LXX Lamentations 4:13 evx a`martiw/n profhtw/n auvth/j avdikiw/n ière,wn 

auvth/j tw/n evkceo,ntwn ai-ma di,kaion evn me,sw| auvth/j 

It was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed the blood of the righteous in the midst of her. 

ai-ma avqw/|on appears more often (19 times): 

Deu 27:25; 1Sam 19:5; 25:26,31; 1Ki 2:5; 2Ki 21:16; 24:4; 2Chr 36:5; Est 8:12; 

1Ma 1:37; 2Ma 1:8; Ps 93:21; 105:38; Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3; 33:15. 

It is interesting that we have two variants with di,kaioj in this context: verse 4 

and verse 24 (see below). In both variants the support is quite similar, but here 

di,kaioj has been added and in 24 it has been omitted! In this verse 4, it is 

almost versions against Greek! But the question is if the versions are all 

faithfully preserving the words or if they exhibit some translation freedom or 

idiom. 

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 35) thinks that the di,kaion here comes from 23:35. 

From the LXX it appears that the term ai-ma di,kaion is synonymous to ai-ma 

avqw/|on with ai-ma di,kaion being more rare. 


TVU 376 


NA 27 Matthew 27:9 to,te evplhrw,qh to. r`hqe.n dia. VIeremi,ou tou/ profh,tou 

le,gontoj\ kai. e;labon ta. tria,konta avrgu,ria( 

th.n timh.n tou/ tetimhme,nou o]n evtimh,santo avpo. ui`w/n VIsrah,l( 

10 kai. e;dwkan auvta. eivj to.n avgro.n tou/ kerame,wj( 

kaqa. sune,taxe,n moi ku,riojÅ 

omit: F, 33, 157, pc, a, b, Sy-S, Sy-P, bo ms 

Zacari,ou 22, Sy-H mg 

VIhsai yrIßk'f. 

rceêAYh;-la, ‘Wh“keyliv.h; yl;ªae hw"÷hy> rm,aYo’w: 

11:13 

@s,K,êh; ~yviäl{v. ‘hx'q.a,w") ~h,_yle[]me( yTir>q:ßy" rv,îa] rq'êy>h; rd

Origen (Sermon 117 on Mat, Latin only, cp. Amy Donaldson's thesis): 

But since what the evangelist says after these things ("Then was fulfilled what 

was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying" which things are written), this is 

not found to be prophesied by Jeremiah anywhere in their books, either those 

read in the churches or those referred to in the writings of the Jews, let 

anyone, then, who understands explain where it might be written. I suspect 

[suspicor] that either Jeremiah was written in place of Zechariah as a scribal 

error, or that it is written in a secret text of Jeremiah. [aut esse aliquam 

secretam Hieremiae scripturam, in qua scribitur.] 

Eusebius (4 th CE, Dem. Ev. 10.4.13): 

But as this passage is not found in the prophecy of Jeremiah, you must consider 

whether it is to be supposed that they have been removed through any evil 

intention, or whether there has been an error in copying, through the mistake of 

some careless transcriber of the Holy Gospels, who wrote Jeremiah instead of 

Zechariah, where he ought to have copied, "Then was fulfilled that which was 

written by Zechariah the prophet", and instead of, "And they cast them into the 

house of the Lord, into the furnace", wrote in error, "And they bought with 

them the field of the potter". 

Cyrill of Jerusalem (4 th CE, cited from Tischendorf): 

Et multus est in demonstranda prophetiae et evangelii consensione, componens 

Zachariae locum cum Matthaeo, sed nec adscribit prophetae nomen nec tangit. 

Jerome (Hom. 11 on Psalm 77): 

Matthew says that this was done in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, 

namely, that Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver, the price that is 

written, and so on. Just as it is written, Matthew says, in Jeremiah the prophet. 

That is what is written in Matthew and we have searched through Jeremiah 

again and again and cannot find this reference at all. We have, however, located 

it in Zachariah. You see, therefore, that this was an error similar to the one 

described above (cf. Mt 13:35). 

Jerome (Comm. Mat): 

This testimony is not found in Jeremiah. Something similar is recorded in 

Zechariah, who is nearly the last of the twelve prophets. Yet both the order and 

the wording are different, although the sense is not that discordant. Recently I 

read in a certain Hebrew book that a Hebrew from the Nazarene sect brought 

to me, the apocryphon of Jeremiah, in which I found this text written word for 

word. [Legi nuper, in quodam hebraico volumine quem Nazarenae sectae mihi 

Hebraeus obtulit, Hieremiae apocryphum, in quo haec ad verbum scripta repperi.] 

Yet it still seems more likely to me that the testimony was taken from

Zechariah by a common practice of the evangelists and apostles. In citation they 

bring out only the sense from the Old Testament. They tend to neglect the 

order of the words. 

Augustine (De Cons. Evang. 3.29): 

Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not 

found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus 

done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that 

this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of 

the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken "by the 

prophet". [primo noverit non omnes codices evangeliorum habere, quod per 

Hieremiam dictum sit, sed tantummodo per prophetam.] 

I also examined this further consideration, namely, that there is no reason why 

this name should have been added to the true text and a corruption created. 

It is clear that the variants here are apparently corrections. 

The question is if "Jeremiah" is an error on the part of the evangelist, or if it is 

a special quotation, otherwise unknown to us, either from another textual 

tradition of Jeremiah, or from an apocryphal work. 

The above quotation from Jerome is interesting. He said to have found the 

exact quotation in "Hieremiae apocryphum". Origen does not appear to be aware 

of any such place where the quotation from Matthew may be found, but also 

assumed that it stood in a "secretam Hieremiae scripturam". Of course one 

could get the idea that Jerome has fabricated the story based on Origen's 

conjecture, but we don't know. At least it is very improbable that Jerome's 

story is true (Compare Schmidtke "Judenchristliche Ev. p. 253). 

Zahn suggests that perhaps the Nazarene Christians invented this apocryphon 

to give the required support, perhaps to their Gospel of the Hebrews. It is 

probable that the words of Mt 27:9 were in the Gospel of the Hebrews, too.

There actually exists a Jeremiah apocryphon, generally known as "Jeremiah's 

Prophecy to Pashhur", which is known in Ethiopic, Sahidic, and Arabic. The short 

text follows as an appendix to the regular book of Jeremiah and translates as 

follows: 

"A Prophecy of Jeremiah. 

And Jeremiah spoke thus unto Pashhur: But you all your clays fight against 

the truth, with your fathers and your sons that shall come after you. And they 

shall commit a sin more damnable than you: They shall sell him who has no 

price, and shall hurt him who will heal pain, and shall condemn him who will 

forgive sin, and shall take thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was 

valued, whom the children of Israel shall sell, and shall give that money for 

(into) the potter's field. As the Lord commanded me, so I speak. And therefore 

shall there come upon them judgment and destruction for ever, and upon their 

sons after them, because in their judgment they have shed innocent blood." 

(cited from M.R. James, all references are given below) 

Some scholars (James) consider this text to be written to set right the 

difficulty caused by the mention of Jeremiah in the Gospel. Others consider the 

text to be independent of Mt (Resch). 

Resch: "The independence [of this apocryphon] from the canonical Mt is shown 

not only by the length of the text, which is not limited to Mt 27:9, but also by 

the absence of the words tou/ tetimhme,nou o]n evtimh,santo, for which the 

Sahidic text simply reads "tradent". 

Already Bengel knew the apocryphon and wrote: "Glossam redolet plane Ieremiae 

nomen, eamque vetustissimam, ex apocryphis Ieremiae in Matthaeum illatam." 

R.E. Brown (Death, p. 651) writes: 

A pertinent Jeremiah apocryphon is known in Ethiopic, Coptic, and Arabic. Vaccari 

("Versioni") reports on a 9th-cent.-AD Arabic codex of the prophets where in Jeremiah's 

speech to Pashhur (Jer 20) the text cited by Matt is found but with clear Christian 

flavoring: The one who is priced heals sickness and forgives sins. Eternal perdition is invoked 

on those involved in the potter's field "and on their sons after them because innocent blood 

will be condemned." All this evidence stems from the Christian era, raising the likelihood 

that the Jeremiah texts have been influenced by Matt 27:9-10. We have no evidence that 

such a Jeremiah writing was in circulation in Matt's time. 

The text of the apocryphon makes a Christian impression. The manuscripts are 

all late. There is the mentioned 9 th CE Arabic codex. Darrell Hannah informed 

me about 12 th to 18 th CE "biblical manuscripts (Ethiopic) or lectionaries (Sahidic 

and Bohairic)". She further writes: "[The text] appears to be an excerpt from a 

longer work, a Jeremiah apocryphon that was composed, or at least circulated, in 

Jewish-Christian circles (so Jerome)." 

There is an extra file on this apocryphon, click here.

Since it is doubtful that Matthew utilized this apocryphon as the source for his 

quotation, there are other explanations: 

1. J. Lightfoot: The collection "The Prophets" once began with Jeremiah and 

the collection as a whole is therefore cited by his name. There is one 

reference for this order: T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14.2 "It is a tradition of our 

Rabbis, that the order of the prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and the Kings, 

Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." 

2. The words have been transmitted orally and Mt wrote them down. 

3. Matthew used a so called testimonium, a collection of proof texts, 

perhaps of a Targumic character, without exact references. 

4. Perhaps Matthew was deliberately mixing the different stories from 

Zechariah and Jeremiah? The field in the Hinnom valley was known as 

potter's field and connected with the name Jeremiah. Possibly a common 

tradition. 

5. Originally no name was given (Bengel). Some early scribe added it. 

6. The last chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah 

(Joseph Mede, 1638). Zechariah 9-11, Zechariah 12-14, and Malachi (also three 

chapters in Hebrew) were three floating and anonymous oracles added after the last 

book of the prophets, Zechariah. It is interesting to note that each of these three 

sections begins with the exact same phrase: "masa deber Yahweh" -- "A burden of 

Yahweh". It cannot be proven that Jeremiah wrote those texts. But most 

commentators agree today that ch. 9-14 were not written by the author 

of ch. 1-8, although they do not agree on date and authorship. 

7. It has been suggested that the Zechariah text rests on Jer 18-19, 32 

(Endemann, 1904). Jeremiah 18-19 refers to a potter (18:2ff., 19:1), a purchase 

(19:1), the Valley of Hinnom (where the Field of Blood is traditionally located, 19:2), 

blood of the innocent (19:4), dead bodies for food to the birds (19:7), "everyone who 

passes by it will be horrified" (19:8) and the renaming of a place for burial (19:6, 11). 

Note also that in Jer 32 the buying of a field is told: 

Jeremiah 32:9 And I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel, and weighed 

out the money to him, seventeen shekels of silver. 

8. Valckenar ("Scholia in Luc" II, 38) suggests that the cause was an error in 

reading the abbreviated names iriou for zriou. But such 

contractions do not occur in the older manuscripts. 

9. Böhl ("Die alttestamentlichen Zitate im NT", p. 75) suggests that the text 

was once in Jeremiah, after Jer 19:15. No evidence. 

10. Quesnel wants to see the quote as coming from Lamentations 4:1-2, 

EstBib 47 (1989) 513-27, but does this help anything? 

Lam 4:1-2 How the gold has grown dim, how the pure gold is changed! The sacred stones lie 

scattered at the head of every street. 2 The precious children of Zion, worth their weight in fine 

gold -- how they are reckoned as earthen pots, the work of a potter's hands!

If one is analyzing the text one finds that it is not really an exact quotation 

from Zechariah, neither from the Masoretic text nor from the LXX. 

Only the first part is identical to Zechariah: 

Mt: And I / they took the thirty pieces of silver, 

Zec: And I took the thirty pieces of silver 

The next part seems to be a (Christian) interpretation of the Zechariah story: 

Mt: the price of him who has been priced, whom sons of Israel did price, 

Zec: 11 and the sheep merchants … 13 a goodly price art which I was priced 

The last part introduces the field in Mt, text again similar to Zechariah: 

Mt: and I / they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me. 

Zec: Then the Lord said to me: "Throw it to the potter" (LXX: "into the treasury") 

and I threw them to the potter (into the treasury) in the house of the Lord. 

The Hebrew text of Zec has "throw it to the potter" while the LXX has "into 

the treasury". So, "the potter" comes from the Hebrew text. The meaning is 

obscure. Some suggest "melting furnace or crucible", perhaps a mint in the 

temple ("Bring the silver to the temple mint to see if it is good"). Other 

commentators suggest potter = unclean place. The words are similar. Perhaps 

"potter" is a transcriptional error and the LXX has it right (so the ICC comm.)? 

(ha'otsar, "treasury") and (hayyotser, "potter"). Note that in Mt 

the chief priests decide not to put the money returned by Judas into "the 

treasury" but expend it for "the potter's field". 

But where does the avgro.n comes from? avgro.n may be related to Aramaic 

chaqel, Act 1:19 ~Akeldama,c. Lohmeyer suggests that perhaps a reading hechal 

existed instead of beth JHWH, and someone corrected the incomprehensible 

hechal el hayyotser into chaqel hayyotser. This is not that improbable because a 

potter's field existed and was connected with the prophesy of Jeremiah. 

Perhaps such a text was available to Matthew. 

Regarding kaqa. sune,taxe,n moi compare: Exo 37:20, 40:23, Lev 8 13, Job 42:9 

etc., it is a typical formula. 

Overall it seems improbable that the text as it stands in Mt was once in this 

form in Zechariah. It is more probable that the text has an independent origin, 

in which the author used Zec 11:12-13 and combined it with Jeremian elements, 

perhaps from memory. Either the author was Matthew, or Matthew took the 

text from an unknown source and author, perhaps even by Jeremiah! Perhaps an

Aramaic or Christian Targum? Wright: "[It is] a free quotation from the 

Hebrew, given, one might almost say, with a running commentary." 

Note the variant in verse 10: 

e;labon in verse 9 is equivocal, it can be 1 st p. singular or 3 rd p. plural. If one 

takes it as singular, e;dwka is required in verse 10. 

The whole construction makes better sense in the singular. Note the added 

subject in the relative clause avpo. ui`w/n VIsrah,l, and the moi at the end. 

The singular would be in agreement with Zechariah. Zahn accepts the singular. It 

is probable that at least in Matthew's Vorlage the words were in the singular. 

In general, the Matthean OT quotations have several curiosities (cp. 2:6 or 

2:23). Also there is another wrong attribution: Compare variant and discussion at 

Mt 13:35. 

Compare 

• C.H.H. Wright "Zechariah and his prophecies", 1879, p. (329-)336-342 

• Zahn Geschichte des NT Kanons 2.2, p. 696-7. 

• Zahn Comm. Mat ad loc. 

• E. Lohmeyer KEK Meyer, Comm. Mat, 1956, p. 378-9 

• R.E. Brown Death I, 1994, p. 650-51 

For the date and author of Zec 9-14 compare: 

• Joseph Mede "Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum Triga: ... Quibus accedunt 

fragmenta sacra", London 1653 

• N. Rubinkam "The second part of the book of Zechariah: with special 

reference to the time of its origin", 1892 

• ICC commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, 1912, p. 232 ff. 

• James Nogalski "Redactional processes in the Book of the Twelve" 1993, 

p. 213 ff. 

Literature on the Jeremiah apocryphon: 

• August Dillmann "Chrestomathia Aethiopica" 1866, p. VIII-IX, who gives 

the Aethiopic text and a Latin translation 

• A. Resch "Agrapha" 1906, p. 317-319 gives a Latin translation of a Sahidic 

text from Woide.

• Montague Rhodes James "The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament", 

1920, p. 62 gives an English translation. 

• Alessandro Vaccari "Le version arabe dei Profeti" Biblica 3 (1922) 401-23, 

esp. 420-23 in ref. to Mt 27:9-10 


TVU 377 



NA 27 Matthew 27:16 ei=con de. to,te de,smion evpi,shmon lego,menon ÎVIhsou/nÐ 

Barabba/nÅ 

27:17 sunhgme,nwn ou=n auvtw/n ei=pen auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj\ ti,na qe,lete 

avpolu,sw u`mi/n( ÎVIhsou/n to.nÐ Barabba/n h' VIhsou/n to.n lego,menon 

cristo,nÈ 

BYZ Matthew 27:16 ei=con de. to,te de,smion evpi,shmon lego,menon Barabba/n 

27:17 sunhgme,nwn ou=n auvtw/n ei=pen auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj Ti,na qe,lete 

avpolu,sw u`mi/n Barabba/n h' VIhsou/n to.n lego,menon Cristo,n 

add VIhsou/n Q, f1, 241**, 299**, 700*, 

Sy-S, Sy-Pal mss , arab MS , arm, geo 2 , Or and Or mss , Bois 

in verse 17: VIhsou/n to.n Barabba/n f1, 22*, 241**, 299**, Sy-S, 

Sy-Pal mss , arab MS , arm, geo 2 , Or, Bois 

VIhsou/n Barabba/n Q, 700*, pc 

to.n Barabba/n B, 1010, Or [WH] Weiss 

Barabba/n VIhsou/n 579 

Omitted by NA 25 and all other printed NT's. 

WH have the to.n before Barabba/n in brackets. 

f1 verse 16: 1*, 118, 209*, 1278*, 1582 

f1 verse 17: 1*, 22*, 118, 209*, 1582 (acc. to A. Anderson) 

Anderson further notes: "In verses 16 and 17, when referring to Barabbas, all 

four family members have VIhsou/n written out rather than abbreviated." 

1: Jesus is erased both times. 

1582: In both verses Jesus has been deleted by dots above the word. 

652 (f1) does not read Jesus here according to R. Champlin (Family Pi in 

Matthew, 1964, Studies and Documents 24). 

22: Harris (JBL 1914) notes that 22 has vs. 17 inñton erased by 1 st hand. 

Apparently 22 has this only in vs. 17, not in vs. 16! 

579: Swanson has this right against NA! Confirmed by K. Witte from Muenster. 

700: Originally VIhsou/n was present in the text, as nomen sacrum in®, but it was 

erased subsequently. 


B: no umlaut

Origen (Sermon 121, on Matthew): 

"In multis exemplaribus non continetur, quod Barabbas etiam Jesus dicebatur, et 

forsitan recte, ut ne nomen Jesu conveniat alicui iniquorum." 

Origen also mentions in passing (Sermon 33): 

"quemadmodum secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus." 

Scholion, possibly from Origen: 

(This scholion appears in S/028 and some minuscule manuscripts, compare 

Swanson for the full quotation) 

Palaioi/j de. pa,nu avntigra,foij evntucw.n e-uron kai. auvto.n to.n 

Barabba/n VIhsou/n lego,menon\ ou[twj gou/n ei=cen h` tou/ Pila,tou 

peu/sij evkei/\ ti,na qe,lete avpo. tw/n du,o avpolu,sw u`mi/n\ VIhsou/n to.n 

Barabba/n h' VIhsou/n to.n lego,menon Cristo,nÈ 

But in many old copies I have encountered, I found also Barabbas himself called Jesus. For 

thus the question of Pilate reads there, "Which of the two do you want me to release for 

you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?" 

Metzger writes: "This scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts 

either to Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the 6 th CE) or to 

Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributetd to Origen, who may indeed be its 

ultimate source." 

In another context Origen reads as B: ti,na qe,lete tw/n du,o avpolu,sw u`mi/n( 

to.n Barabba/n h' VIhsou/n to.n lego,menon cristo,nÈ ("Contra Celsus", book I:2) 

The reading was known to Origen and "not absolutely rejected by him, though 

the general tenor of his extant remarks is unfavorable to it." (WH). 

W.C. Allen (ICC comm. Mt, 1912) writes: "Origen's negative testimony, that it 

was found in some copies, and his unwillingness to accept it, is almost decisive 

proof in favour of its genuineness." 

There are also various scholia (e.g. in S/028, text see Swanson and WH Notes), 

which recall this reading and interpret the name Barabbas as "son of the 

teacher". It is possible that this goes back ultimately to Origen. 

About the spread of this tradition compare Th. Zahn, Diatessaron, p. 105, 211. 

Bar-Bahlul: "The name of this Bar-Abba was Jesus." 

Isho'dad of Merv: "But Bar Abba's name was Jesus." 

WH: "This remarkable reading is attractive, ... but it cannot be right." 

Reasons: - the support is just too weak and bad. 

- why is it not mentioned in verses 20 and 26, where also both names 

appear?

Explanations: Duplication in verse 17 of in in umin (or wrongly 

interpreting in for Jesus) and then subsequently added in verse 16 for 

clearness. 

On the other hand this could equally well be a reason for an omission, reading 

uminin and deleting one in for it made no sense to the scribe. 

The reading of 579 probably arose by overlooking the h before in and thus 

obviously led also to the suspected reading. 

It is very interesting that in B, 1010, Or pt the reading of verse 17 is to.n 

Barabba/n (Weiss: "very remarkable"), presupposing the presence of VIhsou/n in 

an ancestor? But note verse 20, where also to.n Barabba/n appears. 

Burkitt writes: 

"The word to.n is an integral part of the reading 'Jesus bar Abba' and its 

presence in B tells us that B is descended from a manuscript which once had had 

the longer reading, but from which VIhsou/n had been intentionally deleted. The 

same is almost certainly true of Origen's manuscript, though here his own 

comment suggests that he cut the name out himself on considerations which 

seemed to him to commend themselves on internal grounds, though the omission 

was not supported by most of the manuscripts known to him." 

The name Jesus at this point (if original) must have been very perplexing for the 

scribes. It is possible that the name "Jesus" for a prisoner was not acceptable 

and was therefore omitted from very early on. 

The antithetical names make a good symmetry: 

VIhsou/n to.n Barabba/n h' 

VIhsou/n to.n lego,menon Cristo,nÈ 

And there might also be something symbolic in it, which we don't know anymore? 

But note also: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:20 Oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi e;peisan tou.j 

o;clouj i[na aivth,swntai to.n Barabba/n( to.n de. VIhsou/n avpole,swsinÅ 

This verse makes it quite improbable that Jesus was also the name of the 

robber. 

We do not really know. Overall, especially in light of verse 20, it is more 

probable that the name Jesus is an error in verses 16-17. At least in modern 

translations the name should be in a footnote and not in the text.


better move "Jesus" into the apparatus. 



TVU 378 


NA 27 Matthew 27:17 sunhgme,nwn ou=n auvtw/n ei=pen auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj\ 

ti,na qe,lete Þ 1 avpolu,sw u`mi/n Þ 2 ( ÎVIhsou/n to.nÐ Barabba/n h' VIhsou/n 

to.n lego,menon cristo,nÈ 


Þ 1 tw/n du,o D, Q, pc, a, Or 

Þ 1 avpo. tw/n du,o 064, 828(f13), 713, pc, arab MS 

Þ 1 avpo. tou,twn mae-2 

Þ 2 tw/n du,o f1, pc 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 27:21 avpokriqei.j de. o` h`gemw.n ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ti,na qe,lete 

avpo. tw/n du,o avpolu,sw u`mi/nÈ oi` de. ei=pan\ to.n Barabba/nÅ 

Clearly a harmonization to immediate context. 


TVU 379 



NA 27 Matthew 27:24 ivdw.n de. o` Pila/toj o[ti ouvde.n wvfelei/ avlla. ma/llon 

qo,ruboj gi,netai( labw.n u[dwr avpeni,yato ta.j cei/raj avpe,nanti tou/ 

o;clou le,gwn\ avqw/|o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou,tou\ u`mei/j o;yesqeÅ 

kate,nanti B, D, 0281, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Bois, Trg 

txt avpe,nanti 01, A, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg 

Lacuna: C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 21:2 le,gwn auvtoi/j\ poreu,esqe eivj th.n kw,mhn th.n 

kate,nanti u`mw/n( 

avpe,nanti W, f1, 565, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj 

txt 01, B, C, D, L, Z, Q, f13, 28, 33, 157, 700, 892, L844, L2211, al 

NA 27 Matthew 27:61 +Hn de. evkei/ Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. kai. h` a;llh 

Mari,a kaqh,menai avpe,nanti tou/ ta,fouÅ 

safe! 

NA 27 Mark 11:2 u`pa,gete eivj th.n kw,mhn th.n kate,nanti u`mw/n 

avpe,nanti M, pc 

NA 27 Mark 12:41 Kai. kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/ gazofulaki,ou 

avpe,nanti B, U, Y, 33, 579, 1424, al 

NA 27 Mark 13:3 … eivj to. o;roj tw/n evlaiw/n kate,nanti tou/ ièrou/ 

safe! 

NA 27 Luke 19:30 le,gwn\ u`pa,gete eivj th.n kate,nanti kw,mhn 

avpe,nanti 69, 565, 579, pc 

Difficult to judge. 

Note the preceding avpeni,yato. Possibly avpe,nanti has been changed into 

kate,nanti to avoid the double avp-. 


TVU 380 


NA 27 Matthew 27:24 ivdw.n de. o` Pila/toj o[ti ouvde.n wvfelei/ avlla. ma/llon 

qo,ruboj gi,netai( labw.n u[dwr avpeni,yato ta.j cei/raj avpe,nanti tou/ 

o;clou le,gwn\ avqw/|o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou,tou\ u`mei/j o;yesqeÅ 

BYZ Matthew 27:24 ivdw.n de. o` Pila/toj o[ti ouvde.n wvfelei/ avlla. ma/llon 

qo,ruboj gi,netai labw.n u[dwr avpeni,yato ta.j cei/raj avpe,nanti tou/ 

o;clou le,gwn VAqw/|o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou/ dikai,ou tou,tou\ u`mei/j 

o;yesqeÅ 

Byz 01, (A, D), L, W, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, Lat(aur, c, f, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, q, vg), 

Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa pt , mae-1+2, bo, arm, geo 1 , Cyr, WH mg , Trg 

tou,tou tou/ dikai,ou A, D, 064, pc, aur, f, h 

Tregelles has tou/ dikai,ou in brackets. 

txt B, D, Q, pc, it(a, b, d, ff 2 , r 1 ), vg ms , Sy-S, sa pt , geo 2 , 

Or Lat , Chrys, WH, NA 25 


B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 27:19 mhde.n soi. kai. tw/| dikai,w| evkei,nw|\ 

Compare also: 



Zacari,ou uiòu/ Baraci,ou( 


di,kaion B C1 , L, Q, 

Latt, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, Co, mae-1+2, arm, geo, Or, Cyp, WH 

It is interesting that many of those witnesses who do not have the word in this 

verse have it in verse 4. 

The word dikai,ou is mentioned once in the context (27:19). The syntactical 

order of the longer reading corresponds well with that of verse 27:19 (Gundry, 

com. Mt).

It is possible that the words were added here to express Pilates innocence more 

clearly (a "pious embellishment"). It is also possible that tou/ dikai,ou has been 

added to make the object more explicit. ai[matoj tou,tou? 

The word-order variant by A et al. may be also an indication of a secondary 

addition. 

On the other hand the words could have fallen out accidentally due to 

parablepsis (TOU - OU - TOUTOU). This is probable at least in part. The only 

problem is the quite strong and diverse support: 

B, Q, sa pt = Alexandrian 

D, it, (Sy-S) = Western 

The variant is very difficult to evaluate on internal grounds. Wettlaufer says: 

"almost every point presented in favor of the longer reading could be reconstrued 

to support the shorter reading. … In the end it must be conceded that 

on internal grounds both readings are equally possible." 

From the LXX it appears that the term ai-ma di,kaion is synonymous to ai-ma 

avqw/|on, with ai-ma di,kaion being more rare (4 : 19). 

See also discussion at verse 4 above. 

Compare: 

R.D. Wettlaufer "A second glance at Matthew 27:24." NTS 53 (2007) 344-58 


TVU 381 



NA 27 Matthew 27:28 kai. evkdu,santej auvto.n clamu,da kokki,nhn perie,qhkan 

auvtw/|( 

kai. evndu,santej auvto.n 

01 C1 , B, 1424, pc, q, aeth, Or, WH mg , Weiss 

kai. evndu,santej auvto.n i`ma,tion porfurou/n kai. 

D, 157, pc, it, vg mss , Sy-S, Sy-Pal ms 


B: no umlaut 

it = induerunt (same as in Mt 27:31) 

et induerunt eum tunicam purpuream, et clamydem coccineam circumdederunt ei. 

evkdu,w "strip, take off"; midd. "strip oneself, be naked" 

evndu,w "dress, clothe"; midd. "put on, wear" 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:31 kai. o[te evne,paixan auvtw/|( evxe,dusan auvto.n th.n 

clamu,da kai. evne,dusan auvto.n ta. i`ma,tia auvtou/ kai. avph,gagon auvto.n 

eivj to. staurw/saiÅ 

NA 27 John 19:2 kai. oi` stratiw/tai ple,xantej ste,fanon evx avkanqw/n 

evpe,qhkan auvtou/ th/| kefalh/| kai. i`ma,tion porfurou/n perie,balon auvto.n 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:17 kai. evndidu,skousin auvto.n porfu,ran 

BYZ Mark 15:17 kai. evndu,ousin auvto.n porfu,ran 

The reading evndu,w might have been used, because Jesus was probably already 

naked from the flogging, so why take off clothes again? The support is quite 

good. The combination of evkdu,w and evndu,w is again used in verse 31. 

In Mk also "dress" is used: evndidu,skw or evndu,w in Byz 

Weiss says (Textkritik, p. 54) that the evndu,santej was not understood next to 

the perie,qhkan auvtw/|. 

The reading of D et al. (i`ma,tion porfurou/n) is a harmonization with Jo 19:2. 


TVU 382 



NA 27 Matthew 27:32 VExerco,menoi de. eu-ron a;nqrwpon Kurhnai/on Þ 

ovno,mati Si,mwna( tou/ton hvgga,reusan i[na a;rh| to.n stauro.n auvtou/Å 

Þ eivj avpa,nthsin auvtou/ D, it(a, b, c, ff 2 , h), vg mss 

obviam sibi 

"meeting him" 

Lat(aur, f, ff 1 , g 1 , l, q, vg) do not have the addition. 


B: no umlaut 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 15:21 kai. avggareu,ousin para,gonta, tina Si,mwna Kurhnai/on 

evrco,menon avpV avgrou/( to.n pate,ra VAlexa,ndrou kai. ~Rou,fou( i[na a;rh| 

to.n stauro.n auvtou/Å 

NA 27 Luke 23:26 Kai. w`j avph,gagon auvto,n( evpilabo,menoi Si,mwna, tina 

Kurhnai/on evrco,menon avpV avgrou/ evpe,qhkan auvtw/| to.n stauro.n fe,rein 

o;pisqen tou/ VIhsou/Å 

Compare: 



Cyrene is a city in Libya. 

Possibly the words have been omitted as redundant to get Kurhnai/on close to 

ovno,mati Si,mwna. It is also possible that the well fitting term has been added 

remembering it from 25:6. 

avpa,nthsij "meeting", appears elsewhere only in Mt 25:6 in the Gospels, but 

u`pa,nthsij "meeting" appears three times. 


TVU 383 


NA 27 Matthew 27:33 Kai. evlqo,ntej eivj to,pon lego,menon Golgoqa/( o[ evstin 

Krani,ou To,poj lego,menoj( 

BYZ Matthew 27:33 Kai. evlqo,ntej eivj to,pon lego,menon Golgoqa/ o[ evstin 

lego,menoj Krani,ou To,poj 

lego,menoj Krani,ou To,poj A, N*, W, D, f13, 22, 579, Maj 

e`rmhneuo,menoj Krani,ou To,poj M, N C , 713, r 1 (from Mk) 

Krani,ou To,poj lego,menoj 01*, B, L, f1, 652, 33, 157, 892, pc, 

ff 1 , vg mss , mae-1, WH, NA 25 

Krani,ou To,poj 01 C2 , D, G, Q, 124(f13), 565, 700, 1010, 

1241, 1424, al, Lat, sa, bo, mae-2 

Sy-S omits o[ evstin Krani,ou To,poj lego,menoj. (This is a fairly standard 

treatment in Old Syriac where it avoids giving the Aramaic twice, i.e. 'skull which means skull'.) 

01: Tischendorf writes: "C a ut videtur punctis notaverat, sed puncta rursus 

deleta." 


B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:22 Kai. fe,rousin auvto.n evpi. to.n Golgoqa/n to,pon( o[ evstin 

meqermhneuo,menon Krani,ou To,pojÅ 

NA 27 Luke 23:33 kai. o[te h=lqon evpi. to.n to,pon to.n kalou,menon Krani,on( 

NA 27 John 19:17 kai. basta,zwn eàutw/| to.n stauro.n evxh/lqen eivj to.n 

lego,menon Krani,ou To,pon( o] le,getai ~Ebrai?sti. Golgoqa( 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:36 To,te e;rcetai ... eivj cwri,on lego,menon Geqshmani. 

NA 27 John 19:13 eivj to,pon lego,menon liqo,strwton( ~Ebrai?sti. de. 

GabbaqaÅ

There is the possibility that the short reading might be correct, because 

a. it is the harder reading 

b. is has been "corrected" in two different ways, inserting lego,menoj 

before and after it. 

On the other hand it could have been omitted deliberately because of the 

preceding lego,menon before Golgoqa/. 

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) writes: "It is obvious that lego,menoj (or the variant 

lego,menon) after lego,menon cannot be right; read e`llhnizo,menoj or 

e`llhnizo,menon." 




TVU 384 

NA 27 Matthew 27:34 e;dwkan auvtw/| piei/n oi=non meta. colh/j memigme,non\ 

kai. geusa,menoj ouvk hvqe,lhsen piei/nÅ 

BYZ Matthew 27:34 e;dwkan auvtw/| piei/n o;xoj meta. colh/j memigme,non\ kai. 

geusa,menoj ouvk h;qelen piei/n 

Byz A, N, W, D, P C , 0250, 0281, 124, 346, 828, 983(=f13), 579, 700, 

892, 1424, Maj, c, f, h, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1+2, bo mss , geo 2 , Tert, Ir, Or 

txt 01, B, D, K, P*, L, Q, f1, 652, 69, 543, 788, 826(=f13), 22, 33, pc, 

Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H mg , sa, bo, arm, geo 1 


B: umlaut! (line 10 B, p. 1275) auvtw/| piei/n oi=non meta. 

o;xoj, sour wine, wine vinegar, a popular and inexpensive thirst-quenching drink 

meta. colh/j memigme,non mixed with gall; 

colh, as a bitter substance made from wormwood, a plant yielding a 

bitter-tasting dark-green oil that is alcoholic in its effect 

Barnabas 7:3 (2 nd CE): avlla. kai. staurwqei.j evpoti,zeto o;xei kai. colh|/) 

Tertullian (2 nd CE): "to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink" 

(De Spectaculis, ch. 30) 

Irenaeus (2 nd CE): "that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;" 

(Adv. haer. III, 19) 

"and that He should have vinegar and gall given Him to drink;" 

(Adv. haer. IV, 33) 

"For when did the Christ above have vinegar and gall given him to drink?" 

(Adv. haer. IV, 35) 

Ephrem (commentary diatessaron): 

"Instead of good wine, they gave him vinegar and gall." 

"He had given her [the daughter of Zion] pure wine, 

but she offered him vinegar [soaked]in a sponge."

Celsus (From Origen "Contra Celsus"): 

(book 2, ch. 37): "he [Celsus] makes the vinegar and the gall a subject of reproach 

to Jesus" 

(book 7, ch. 13): "For what better was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep, or to 

drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth?" … But in regard to the 

vinegar and gall mentioned in the prophecy, "They gave me also gall for 

my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," we have already 

referred to this point; 

Origen in his commentary on John (ch. 19): "But we must remember that the sixtyninth 

Psalm, which contains the words, "The zeal of thy house shall devour 

me," and a little further on, "They gave Me gall for My drink and for My 

thirst they gave Me vinegar," both texts being recorded in the Gospels" 

Compare: 

LXX Psalm 68:22 kai. e;dwkan eivj to. brw/ma, mou colh.n kai. eivj th.n 

di,yan mou evpo,tisa,n me o;xoj 

"And they give for my food gall, And for my thirst cause me to drink vinegar." 

Direct parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:23 kai. evdi,doun auvtw/| evsmurnisme,non oi=non\ o]j de. ouvk 

e;labenÅ wine mixed with myrrh 

Sy-H ms : o;xoj (acc. to Tis) 

Later parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:48 kai. euvqe,wj dramw.n ei-j evx auvtw/n kai. labw.n 

spo,ggon plh,saj te o;xouj kai. periqei.j kala,mw| evpo,tizen auvto,nÅ 

NA 27 Mark 15:36 dramw.n de, tij Îkai.Ð gemi,saj spo,ggon o;xouj periqei.j 

kala,mw| evpo,tizen auvto,n ... 

NA 27 Luke 23:36 evne,paixan de. auvtw/| kai. oi` stratiw/tai proserco,menoi( 

o;xoj prosfe,rontej auvtw/| 

NA 27 John 19:29 skeu/oj e;keito o;xouj mesto,n\ spo,ggon ou=n mesto.n tou/ 

o;xouj u`ssw,pw| periqe,ntej prosh,negkan auvtou/ tw/| sto,matiÅ 

NA 27 John 19:30 o[te ou=n e;laben to. o;xoj Îo`Ð VIhsou/j ei=pen\ 

There are two points where a drink is mentioned, first here, where only Mt and 

Mk have it, and later, where all four have it. In the later one o;xoj is safe. It is 

very probable that o;xoj at this first point is a conformation to the latter one. 

Note also that in Mk oi=non is safe. How could oi=non in Mt originate? A 

harmonization to Mk is very improbable. It is more probable that Matthew took 

it originally from Mk and that it has subsequently been conformed to Psalm 

68:22 and the later accounts which all have o;xoj.

That the reading is early can be seen from the quotations of the church fathers. 

Possibly the overall meaning of both mixtures is essentially the same, viz "sour 

wine". The colh,, gall, a plant yielding a bitter-tasting dark-green oil that is 

alcoholic in its effect, has been used as an anesthetic. 

Compare: 

JW Burgeon "Traditional text", 1896, p. 253 – 258 


TVU 385 


NA 27 Matthew 27:35 Staurw,santej de. auvto.n diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia 

auvtou/ ba,llontej klh/ron Þ ( 

Þ i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. tou/ profh,tou\ diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia, 

mou eàutoi/j kai. evpi. to.n i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ron 

ut impleretur quod dictum est per prophetam: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea 

et super vestem meam miserunt sortem. 

D, Q, F, 0233, 0250, f1, 652, f13, 2 C , 22, 517, 954, 1071, 1243, 1424, 1675, al, 

it(a, aur, b, c, h, q), vg Cl , Sy-H, Sy-Pal mss , arm, geo, mae-1 (not mae-2), Eus, TR 

f13: 174, 828 no addition; 983 adds after verse 36 

u`po. tou/ … f1, 22, 2 C , TR 

Þ evpV auvta, 892*, pc, Sy-S, Co (:: Mk 15:24) 

Lat(d, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , l, vg) do not have the addition 


B: umlaut! (line 16 B, p. 1275) ba,llontej klh/ron( 36 kai. kaqh,menoi 

Compare: 

LXX Psalm 21:19 diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia, mou eàutoi/j kai. evpi. to.n 

i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ron 

NA 27 John 19:24 i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/| Îh` le,gousaÐ\ diemeri,santo ta. 

i`ma,tia, mou eàutoi/j kai. evpi. to.n i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ronÅ 

Old Latin: ut scriptura impleatur: Diviserunt vestimenta mea et in vestem meam 

miserunt sortem 

Eusebius (early 4 th CE) is citing scripture in "De Demonstratione Evangelica" 

(The proof of the Gospel), book 10, ch. 8. Eusebius is first quoting parts of Psalm 

21 and then continues: (original Greek in PG 22) 

"[These quotes] were all fulfilled, when they fastened His hands and feet 

to the Cross with nails, and when they took his garments and divided them 

among them. For John's record is: 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified 

Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part: and also his coat. 

Now the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout. 24 They said therefore 

among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be; that the Scripture 

might be fulfilled, which says: They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture 

did they cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. 

And Matthew witnesses to what was done as follows: 27:35 And they crucified 

him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 

the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast 

lots. 36 And sitting down they watched him." [The Greek is exactly as given above.]

It is possible that the sentence fell out due to h.t. (klh/ron - klh/ron). It is 

also possible that the words have been added from the Johannine parallel (so 

Weiss). 

While the words from Ps 21 are identical, the introductory formula in Mt i[na 

plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. tou/ profh,tou is different to that in Jo: i[na h` 

grafh. plhrwqh/| Îh` le,gousaÐ, and there is almost no variation in it. This is 

strange. If this is a harmonization to Jo one would expect that at least part of 

the witnesses would harmonize this part to Jo, too. The uniform wording points 

to a common ancestor or origin of the reading. 

i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n … is the typical Matthean formula and appears 9 times 

in Mt (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 21:4, 27:9). Metzger suggests 

that the formula has been assimilated to Mt. 

The support could be termed as "basically Caesarean". One should note though 

that Q is a very good witness in the second half of Mt. 

Eusebius is the earliest witness to this reading. Perhaps it got from there into 

some biblical manuscripts? 

Vogels and von Soden note the addition also as a Tatianic (Diatessaron) reading, 

but I am not sure if this is justified. Mt 27:35 is not present at all. The Arabic 

Diatessaron has the following order: Mk 15:28, Mk 15:23a, Jo 19:23-24, Mt 

27:36, Jo 19:19-22. 

Regarding the textus receptus: Erasmus used codex 2 as the printer's copy and 

his corrections, written between the lines of the text and occasionally in the 

margins, are still there. Perhaps the addition of the words at this point is also 

from Erasmus, since he was also utilizing codex 1, which contains this reading. 

Note that f1 and the TR share the minority reading u`po.. 

But Hort writes (Notes on select readings): "This is one of the non-Syrian 

readings adopted by Erasmus, doubtless from the Latin Vulgate, and retained in 

the Received Text." 

The earliest copy of Eusebius' Demonstratio is from the 12 th CE (Paris 469). 

This rules out the possibility that the reading got into Eusebius from the TR. 




TVU 386 


NA 27 Matthew 27:38 To,te staurou/ntai su.n auvtw/| du,o lh|stai,( 

ei-j evk dexiw/n Þ 1 kai. ei-j evx euvwnu,mwn Þ 2 Å 

Þ 1 nomine Zoatham c 

Þ 2 nomine Camma c 

Codex Colbertinus, c (12 th CE) reads in full: 

"tunc crucifixerunt cum eo duos latrones, unus a dextris nomine Zoatham, et 

unus a sinistris nomine Camma." 

B: no umlaut 

The same addition occurs in Mk 15:27 by the same manuscript c. 

NA 27 Mark 15:27 Kai. su.n auvtw/| staurou/sin du,o lh|sta,j( 

e[na evk dexiw/n Þ 1 kai. e[na evx euvwnu,mwn Þ 2 auvtou/Å 

Þ 1 nomine Zoathan c 

Þ 2 nomine Chammatha c 

Another tradition appears in Luke: 

NA 27 Luke 23:32 :Hgonto de. kai. e[teroi kakou/rgoi du,o su.n auvtw/| Þ 1 

avnaireqh/nai Þ 2 Å 

Þ 1 Ioathas et Maggatras l 

Þ 2 … et Capnatas r 1 (having a lacuna before) 

Isho'dad of Merv: 

"The thief who was on his right hand was named Titus; 

and the one on his left hand Dumachus." 

(Commentary on Mt, cp. Gibson p. 112) 

See "Names for the Nameless in the NT" 

in Metzger "New Testament Studies", Leiden 1980

TVU 387 



NA 27 Matthew 27:40 kai. le,gontej\ o` katalu,wn to.n nao.n kai. evn trisi.n 

h`me,raij oivkodomw/n( sw/son seauto,n( eiv uiò.j ei= tou/ qeou/( Îkai.Ð 

kata,bhqi avpo. tou/ staurou/Å 

eiv uiò.j qeou/ ei= B, Weiss, Trg mg 

omit kai.: 01 C2 , B, K, P, L, W, D, Q, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 892, Maj, 

Lat(aur, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , l, q, vg), Sy-H, Co, Did, WH, Gre, Trg, SBL 

add kai.: 01*, A, D, pc, it(a, b, c, d, h, r 1 ), 


B: no umlaut 

Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Pal mss , Bois, Weiss 

NA 25 has kai. in brackets as txt. 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Mark 15:30 sw/son seauto.n kataba.j avpo. tou/ staurou/Å 

BYZ Mark 15:30 sw/son seauto.n kai. kata,ba avpo. tou/ staurou/ 

Variant not noted in NA, but in SQE. 

Byz A, C, P, f1, f13, 22, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1424, Maj, 

Syr, arm, geo 

txt 01, B, D, L, D, Q, Y, 579, 1342, k, vg, Co 

NA 27 Luke 23:35 Kai. ei`sth,kei o` lao.j qewrw/nÅ evxemukth,rizon de. kai. oi` 

a;rcontej le,gontej\ a;llouj e;swsen( swsa,tw eàuto,n( eiv ou-to,j evstin o` 

cristo.j tou/ qeou/ o` evklekto,jÅ 

Meaning: 

without kai.: "Save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." 

with kai.: "Save yourself, if you are the Son of God and come down from the cross." 

The support for the kai. is quite good. On the other hand in Mk it is the 

Byzantine variant. It could have been omitted because of homoioarcton (KAI - 

KATA.., so Weiss). 

Overall it makes more the impression of an addition to separate the clauses. 

Note that the addition of the complete phrase is one of the so called Minor 

Agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk.

P. Williams comments on the Syriac: 

"The other side of the fact that certain conditions make asyndeton more likely, 

is that when these conditions are not fulfilled waw is used, and its presence in 

Syriac witnesses has no bearing on the presence or absence of kai, in the Greek 

Vorlage. Applying this to Matthew 27:40 could shift the balance of evidence 

against the reading given in txt. NA27 cites (S)P, alongside only 01* A D pc and 

the Old Latin in favor of txt’s kai, in sw/son seauto,n( eiv uiò.j ei= tou/ qeou/( 

Îkai.Ð kata,bhqi avpo. tou/ staurou/Å However, the waw in S and P is liable to 

occur since the two imperatives are not adjacent, represent two distinct actions, 

and the former is not preparatory to the latter. If the other reading is adopted 

a significant exegetical change results. Those who pass by the cross make three 

independent taunts: 

(1) This is [vocatively: you are] the one who said he could destroy the temple 

and rebuild it in three days; 

(2) If you are God’s son then rescue yourself; 

(3) Come down from the cross. 

Taking the three taunts as independent also might explain the apparent lack of 

logical sequence between the phrases." 

P. Williams "Early Syriac Translation Technique and the textual criticism of the Greek Gospels", 

Gorgias Press, 2004, p. 152-53. 


better omit it. 



TVU 388 

NA 27 Matthew 27:41 o`moi,wj kai. oi` avrcierei/j evmpai,zontej meta. tw/n 

grammate,wn kai. presbute,rwn e;legon\ 

BYZ Matthew 27:41 o`moi,wj de. kai. oi` avrcierei/j evmpai,zontej meta. tw/n 

grammate,wn kai. presbute,rwn kai. Farisai,wn e;legon 

Byz Y, D, P, S, F, 22, 157, 565, Maj, f, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo pt 

txt 01â, A, B, L, Q, f1, 652, f13, 33, 700, 892, al, 

Lat(aur, ff 1 , g 1 , l, vg), sa, mae-1+2, bo pt 

kai. Farisai,wn only: D, W, 517, 1424, pc, it(a, b, c, d, ff 2 , g 1 , h, q, r 1 ), Sy-S 

omit: G, pc 


B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 26:57 Oi` de. krath,santej to.n VIhsou/n avph,gagon pro.j 

Kai?a,fan to.n avrciere,a( o[pou oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi 

sunh,cqhsanÅ 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:31 o`moi,wj kai. oi` avrcierei/j evmpai,zontej pro.j avllh,louj 

meta. tw/n grammate,wn e;legon\ a;llouj e;swsen( eàuto.n ouv du,natai 

sw/sai\ 

Clearly an expansion. 

Compare 26:3 addition of kai. oi` grammatei/j 

26:59 addition of kai. oi` presbu,teroi 


TVU 389 


NA 27 Matthew 27:46 peri. de. th.n evna,thn w[ran avnebo,hsen o` VIhsou/j fwnh/| 

mega,lh| le,gwn\ hli hli lema sabacqaniÈ tou/tV e;stin\ Qee, mou qee, 

mou( i`nati, me evgkate,lipejÈ 


evbo,hsen B, L, W, 69, 124, 788(=f13), 33, 700, pc, WH, Trg 

txt avnebo,hsen 01, A, C, D, Q, f1, f13-part, 892, Maj, NA 25 , Weiss 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:34 kai. th/| evna,th| w[ra| evbo,hsen o` VIhsou/j fwnh/| mega,lh|\ 

avnebo,hsen M, N, 118, pc 

avnaboa,w appears 48 times in the LXX, but only once in the NT. 

boa,w appears 153 times in the LXX and 12 times in the NT. 

A conformation to Mk is possible (so Tischendorf) but normally unlikely. 

The variation is at least in part accidental: wrananebohsen 

The question is if the an of w[ran led to the creation of avnebo,hsen or if the 

double anan appeared to scribes as a dittography and they then deleted one an. 

The latter seems slightly more probable. 

The support for evbo,hsen is not coherent (W, f13). 


TVU 390 



NA 27 Matthew 27:46 peri. de. th.n evna,thn w[ran avnebo,hsen o` VIhsou/j fwnh/| 

mega,lh| le,gwn\ hli hli lema sabacqaniÈ tou/tV e;stin\ Qee, mou qee, 

mou( i`nati, me evgkate,lipejÈ 

elwi elwi 01, B, 33, vg mss , Co, WH 

txt A, D, (L), W, Q, f1, f13, 892, Maj, Lat, Cl, NA 25 , Weiss 

ahli ahli L 

B, p. 1275, C 16/17: Elwei elwei lema sabakthanei 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:34 elwi elwi lema sabacqaniÈ o[ evstin meqermhneuo,menon\ 

o` qeo,j mou o` qeo,j mou( eivj ti, evgkate,lipe,j meÈ 

hli hli D, Q, 059, 565, pc, it, vg mss , Eus 


"Matthew first transliterates the Aramaic, according to the Vatican manuscript 

(B), the words used by Jesus: Elwi, elwi, lema sabakthani; Some of the MSS give 

the transliteration of these words from Ps 22:1 in the Hebrew (Eli, Eli, lama 

Zaphthanei). This is the only one of the seven sayings of Christ on the Cross 

given by Mark and Matthew. The other six occur in Luke and John." 

Possibly a harmonization to Mk (so already Weiss). 

Compare: 

M. Patella "The death of Jesus: The diabolic force and the ministering angel", 

dissertation, Paris, 1999, p. 92ff. 


TVU 391 



NA 27 Matthew 27:49 oi` de. loipoi. e;legon\ a;fej i;dwmen eiv e;rcetai VHli,aj 

sw,swn auvto,nÅ 

ei=pan B, (D), f13, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Trg 

ei=pon D, 69 

txt 01, A, C, L, W, Q, f1, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg 

B: no umlaut 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Mark 15:36 dramw.n de, tij Îkai.Ð gemi,saj spo,ggon o;xouj periqei.j 

kala,mw| evpo,tizen auvto,n le,gwn\ a;fete i;dwmen eiv e;rcetai VHli,aj 

kaqelei/n auvto,nÅ 


NA 27 Matthew 27:47 tine.j de. tw/n evkei/ e`sthko,twn avkou,santej e;legon o[ti 

VHli,an fwnei/ ou-tojÅ 

Possibly e;legon is a conformation to verse 47. 


TVU 392 



NA 27 Matthew 27:49 oi` de. loipoi. e;legon\ a;fej i;dwmen eiv e;rcetai VHli,aj 

sw,swn auvto,n Þ Å 

T&T #63 

Þ a;lloj de. labw,n lo,gchn e;nuxen auvtou/ th,n pleura,n 

kai, evxh/lqen u[dwr kai, ai-ma 

Alius autem accepta lancea pupungit latus eius et exiit aqua et sanguis. 

01, B, C, L, U 92% , G 93% , pc 34 , vg mss , Sy-Pal mss , arab MS , mae-1+2, aeth, Chrys?, Cyr 

word-order: ... ai-ma kai, u[dwr ... U, G, 2680, pc 19 of 34 , gat, mae-2, arab MS 

Tis and Swanson add: U/030 (030 is not at all noted in T&T at this unit) 

WH have the sentence in double brackets in the text. 

34 minuscules (from T&T, % Byz readings): 5, 26, 48 89% , 67 84% , 115, 127, 160 89% , 

175, 364, 782, 871, 1010, 1011, 1057 89% , 1300, 1392, 1416, 1448, 1555 89% , 1566, 

1701, 1780 86% , 2117, 2126, 2139, 2283, 2328, 2437*, 2585 89% , 2586 78% , 2622, 

2680 77% , 2766 86% , 2787 

green = deviation more than 10% from Byz (T&T) 

underlined = have the order ai-ma kai, u[dwr 

vg mss : D, E, ƎP mg , L, Q, R, r 2 , gat, book of Mulling, book of Dimma, BL Harl. 1023, 

BL Harl. 1802, BL Royal 1 E VI, BL Additional 40618, St. Gall. 51(p. 75) 

txt A, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 157, [372, 2737], 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 

1424, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa, bo 

2437: email from Jairo P. Cavalcante Filho: "I have checked the reading of manuscript 2437 and 

found out that 2437* has the inclusion, but a corrector has erased 3 lines and replaced them 

with the traditional reading." 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Western non-interpolation

Compare: Jo 19:34 

NA 27 John 19:34 avllV ei-j tw/n stratiwtw/n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n pleura.n 

e;nuxen( kai. evxh/lqen euvqu.j ai-ma kai. u[dwrÅ 

u[dwr kai, ai-ma Y, 579, e, sa mss , bo, Eus 

omit euvqu.j: Y?, e, Or 1/2 

Compare also: 

NA 27 1 John 5:6 ou-to,j evstin o` evlqw.n diV u[datoj kai. ai[matoj( VIhsou/j 

Cristo,j( ouvk evn tw/| u[dati mo,non avllV evn tw/| u[dati kai. evn tw/| ai[mati\ 

kai. to. pneu/ma, evstin to. marturou/n( o[ti to. pneu/ma, evstin h` avlh,qeiaÅ 

Severus of Antioch writes (after 510 CE) in his 27 th letter (9 th book) to Thomas, 

bishop of Germanicea: 

"But that our Lord Jesus Christ our God was pierced in the side with a lance by that soldier 

after he gave up the ghost, and blood and water came forth from it in a miraculous manner, the 

divine John the Evangelist recorded, and no one else wrote about this. But certain persons have 

clearly falsified the Gospel of Matthew and inserted this same passage, when the contrary is the 

fact, in order to show that it was while he was alive that the soldier pierced his side with the 

spear, and afterwards he gave up the ghost. 

This question was examined with great carefulness when my meanness was in the royal city 

[Constantinople], at the time when the affair of Macedonius was being examined, who became 

archbishop of that city, and there was produced the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in 

large letters, and was preserved with great honor in the royal palace, which was said to have 

been found in the days of Zeno [ca. 474-491 CE] of honorable memory in a city of the island of 

Cyprus buried with the holy Barnabas, who went about with Paul and spread the divine preaching; 

and, when the Gospel of Matthew was opened, it was found to be free from the falsification 

contained in this addition, of the story of the soldier and the spear. 

I do not know how and for what reason the holy John [Chrysostom] who became bishop of the 

same royal city and the admirable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, did not test this question, and 

allowed the two passages to stand, in the two evangelists, neglecting the evidence to the 

contrary; but perhaps in order that this also might be known, that, while they speak and write 

everything under the operation of the Holy Spirit, and while these men are higher than we (for 

we are men who creep along the earth), as the heaven is higher than the earth, and that they 

themselves also might be known to be men, and to leave omniscience to God only, and that there 

is something in affairs which cannot be expressed, the complete revelation of which is not made 

known. […] 

Accordingly, you should know that Eusebius of Caesarea also who is called 'Pamphili', who wrote 

the canons of the gospel, and imitated those who wrote on this subject before him, and had 

more complete knowledge of this question than the others, in the 10th canon, in which he 

recorded the places peculiar to one of the evangelists, inserted this passage also about the 

soldier and the lance, saying that John alone recorded it. 

But for the rest we find that the holy John [Chrysostom] himself also, the bishop of 

Constantinople, in the commentary on the same Matthew the Evangelist with regard to this same 

addition which we are now discussing, himself also said things that fit the truth, for he 

expressed himself thus:

For after the wound the fountain of life welled forth for us.>> [Hom. Mt 88] But these are the 

words of a man who follows the footsteps of the narrative of John the Evangelist and nothing 

else; for he called the body 'dead'; because it was after he gave up the ghost that the soldier 

pierced him, and gave occasion for the fountain of our salvation to well forth thence, as the 

doctor John the bishop said. 

But this addition to the narrative of Matthew the Evangelist has never been inserted by any of 

the earlier commentators who wrote, not by Origen, who examined such questions minutely, 

though he sinned in matters that are necessary for the truth of the faith of the church, nor by 

Didymus, nor by any other man who has written on this subject." 

[compare E.W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis 14, p. 266-7] 

Chrysostom (4 th CE, homilia in Mattheum 88, PG 58.775): 

VAll~ o[ra kai. evnteu/qen th.n avse,lgeian( kai. th.n avkolasi,an( kai. th.n 

a;noian) VEno,misan VHli,an ei=nai( fhsi.( to.n kalou,menon( kai. euvqe,wj 

evpo,tisan auvto.n o;xoj) {Eteroj de. proselqw.n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n 

pleura.n e;nuxe) Ti, ge,noit~ a'n tou,twn paranomw,teron( ti, de. 

qhriwde,steron( oi] me,cri tosou,tou th.n eàutw/n mani,an evxe,teinan( kai. 

eivj nekro.n sw/ma loipo.n u`bri,zontejÈ Su. de, moi sko,pei pw/j tai/j 

paranomi,aij auvtw/n eivj h`mete,ran ke,crhtai swthri,an) Meta. ga.r th.n 

plhgh.n ai` plhgai. th/j swthri,aj h`mw/n evkei/qen avne,blusan) ~O de. 

VIhsou/j, kra,xaj fwnh/| mega,lh|( avfh/ke to. pneu/ma) 

"But mark herein also their wantonness, and intemperance, and folly. They thought (it is said) 

that it was Elias whom He called [Mt 27:49], and straightway they gave Him vinegar to drink. [Mt 

27:48] But another came unto Him, and pierced His side with a spear. [Mt 27:49] What 

could be more lawless, what more brutal, than these men; who carried their madness to so great 

a length, offering insult at last even to a dead body? But mark thou, I pray you, how He made use 

of their wickednesses for our salvation. For after the blow the fountains of our salvation gushed 

forth from thence. And Jesus, when He had cried with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost. [Mt 

27:50]" 

Mt: a;lloj de. labw,n lo,gchn e;nuxen auvtou/ th,n pleura,n 

Jo: avllV ei-j tw/n stratiwtw/n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n pleura.n e;nuxen( 

Chrys: e[teroj de. proselqw.n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n pleura.n e;nuxen( 

It is not completely clear, which evangelist Chrysostom is quoting here, since the 

wording is slightly different from both. But he is discussing Matthean material 

in its normal succession: Mt 27:48-50. It appears possible that Chrysostom read 

the addition in his copy of Mt. Note especially the e[teroj de., which resembles 

the a;lloj de. from Matthew. Hort notes Chrysostom as a witness, too. 

On the other hand it could be argued that the second part of the quote agrees 

with John (he placed e;nuxen at the end) and also that Chrysostom is saying that 

the piercing happened to a dead body. 

Severus' discussion of the evidence is not clear. First he is saying that John 

Chrysostom "did not test this question, and allowed the two passages to stand in 

the two evangelists" and after that he is suggesting, that Chrysostom is quoting

from John (only) here. But Severus is probably wrong in suggesting this, because 

there would be no reason for Chrysostom to do so at this point. Compare note in 

manuscript 72 below. 

The quotation from Cyril († 444), mentioned by Severus, was probably in his lost 

commentary on Matthew. 

The support for the addition is good. Also there is no immediate reason for a 

secondary addition. The problem is the discrepancy with Jo, where the piercing 

happened AFTER Jesus death and here it happened before. 

WH have these words in double brackets in their text. They do not want to rule 

out completely that this clause was originally in Mt's Gospel. 

The only alternative idea given is that some scribe was inspired by the ei-j to 

add an a;lloj and/or he remembered the ei-j from Jo when he read the ei-j in 

Mt and added the clause. 

48 kai. euvqe,wj dramw.n ei-j evx auvtw/n kai. labw.n spo,ggon ... 

49 a;lloj de. labw,n lo,gchn ... 

Another idea is that someone wrote the sentence in the margin meant to be 

inserted at some other point and a later scribe inserted it wrongly here (but the 

diverse support of unrelated manuscripts makes this improbable). 

Possibly some ancient lectionary usage influenced it. Compare Burgeon ("The last 

12 verses..."). 

Ehrman argues (p. 195) that it could be an anti-docetic corruption: The piercing 

BEFORE his dead shows that he was a real blood and flesh human being and 

experienced real pain and suffering. 

It is very difficult to explain the diversity of witnesses supporting this verse. 

The best Alexandrian witnesses (01, B, L) group with mixed manuscripts (C, 

2680) and fully Byzantine manuscripts (U, G, 33 minuscules). It is improbable 

that they all added the words from a marginal note! 

Wording Mt and Jo: 

Mt: a;lloj de. labw,n lo,gchn e;nuxen auvtou/ th,n pleura,n 

kai, evxh/lqen u[dwr kai, ai-ma 

Jo: avllV ei-j tw/n stratiwtw/n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n pleura.n e;nuxen( 

kai. evxh/lqen euvqu.j ai-ma kai. u[dwrÅ

The wording is quite different from John and astonishingly fixed. One would 

have expected strong harmonization to John and more variants. This is not the 

case. Only one witness (1416) adds euvqe,wj before(!) evxh/lqen and the order 

u[dwr kai, ai-ma is changed by half of the witnesses. The first part of the 

sentences is quite different in Mt and John, but all witnesses have exactly the 

same wording in Mt. 

This rules out an independent origin due to a simple harmonization with John 

completely. This insertion, if it is one, must go back to one source. 

There is a scholion in manuscript 72 (11 th CE), which attests the presence of the 

sentence in "the Gospel", according to church father reports. 

Manuscript 72 (British Library, London, "Harley 5647"): 

o[ti eivj to. katV i`stori,an euvagge,lion Diodw,rou kai. Tatianou/ kai. 

a;llwn diafo,rwn a`gi,wn pate,rwn tou/to pro,skeitai\ a;lloj de. 

labw,n lo,gchn e;nuxen auvtou/ th,n pleura,n kai, evxh/lqen u[dwr kai, 

ai-maÅ tou/to le,gei kai. o` Cruso,stomojÅ 

"Because, in the Gospel, according to a report of Diodore and Tatian and various other holy 

fathers, this is added: a;lloj de. ... ai-maÅ Chrysostom also says this." 

It has been suggested that there is some corruption in the text and that 

Diodw,rou or Diadw,rou actually means dia. DV = "dia 4" = Diatessaron. 

Gregory writes on manuscript 72: "Notes and readings (added) in Mt, two notes 

in Mk, readings in Lk and Jo, ..., many personal notes in Greek and Arabic." The 

manuscript once belonged to the monastery of Mar Simeon, near Kartmin in 

Syria. 


If this reading was in Tatian, why at this place? Is it possible that he actually 

read it in his Mt? But Burkitt writes ("Ev. da-mepharreshe" at Mt 27:49): 

"There is no Syriac evidence for the insertion here of words corresponding to 

Jo 19:34. The spear-piercing is mentioned in E 259 [Ephrem's commentary] after 

Mt 27:55." 

The evidence we have of the Diatessaron shows the presence of the words after 

Jesus death. In Ephrem it can be localized somewhere between 27:53 and 27:58. 

In the Arabic it comes after 27:54. 

Vogels (BZ 10, 1912, 396-405) shows that the Old Latin manuscript e in John 

omits euvqu.j and changes the order in u[dwr kai, ai-ma as in Mt. He explains 

this with some good arguments as an influence of a harmony.

If this sentence is a secondary addition, why insert it here (and create a 

discrepancy) and not at some later point, e.g. after verse 50? 

P. Comfort, in his book "Encountering the manuscripts" (2005, p. 299-300), also 

notes that the reading "appears to present a jarring contradiction to what was 

just described: while many of the bystanders were waiting to see Elijah would 

come and save Jesus, a Roman soldier (in complete opposition to this sentiment) 

lances Jesus' side with his spear." 

Context: 

45 From the sixth hour, darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 

46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, 

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 

47 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, "This man is calling for Elijah." 

48 At once one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and 

gave it to him to drink. 

49 But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." 

But another took his spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood. 

50 But Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. 

Especially the last de. is awkward. Without the piercing sentence everything is 

normal and straightforward: "Wait, let's see ..." - But Jesus cried ... 

49 oi` de. loipoi. e;legon\ ... 

a;lloj de. labw,n lo,gchn 

50 o` de. VIhsou/j pa,lin kra,xaj ... 

Either this is a very unskillful secondary insertion or it is original and has been 

eliminated to improve style and remove a difficulty. There is no convincing 

explanation for a secondary addition of this kind. 

It has been suggested that the testimony in Jo 19:35 was meant with regard to 

the time of the piercing ("I testify that it happened AFTER his death."), to 

object to other accounts like Mt who placed it before Jesus' death. 

With the words, Jesus is not dying from crucifixion (at least not alone), but 

from a stabbing in the side! This obviously is a big problem and perhaps led to 

the elimination of the words? Imagine the implications of having these words in 

the Bible today! 

Why do add 35 fully Byzantine manuscripts the words with exactly identical 

wording exactly here? 

Even if the Diatessaron could be established as a source, it is still a puzzle why 

these diverse witnesses inserted the words here.

Tischendorf notes: 

"Ceterum opinionem, ex illa ev. Matth. lectione ortiam, Iesu adhuc vivi latus 

lancea apertum fuisse, Clemens V. in concilio Viennensi a. 1311 damnavit, docens 

Iohannem tenuisse rectum rei gestae ordinem." 

[Another opinion, that the lection originated from the Gospel of Mt, and Jesus was still alive, 

when his side was opened with a spear, Clemens V. in 1311 condemned, teaching that John 

preserved the right order.] 

Compare: 

• FC Conybeare JTS 8 (1907) 571-581 

• HJ Vogels BZ 10 (1912) 396-405 

• JP van Kasteren BZ 12 (1914) 32-34 

• C. Peters "Das Diatessaron Tatians", 1939, p. 125-129 


TVU 393 


NA 27 Matthew 27:54 ~O de. e`kato,ntarcoj kai. oi` metV auvtou/ throu/ntej 

to.n VIhsou/n ivdo,ntej to.n seismo.n kai. ta. geno,mena evfobh,qhsan 

sfo,dra( le,gontej\ avlhqw/j qeou/ uiò.j h=n ou-tojÅ 

gino,mena B, D, 28, 33, 124, 157, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Trg 

txt geno,mena 01, A, C, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 892, Maj, Sy, Co 

B: no umlaut 

geno,mena participle aorist middle accusative neuter plural 

gino,mena participle present middle accusative neuter plural 

Parallel: 

NA 27 Luke 23:48 kai. pa,ntej oi` sumparageno,menoi o;cloi evpi. th.n 

qewri,an tau,thn( qewrh,santej ta. geno,mena( tu,ptontej ta. sth,qh 

u`pe,strefonÅ gino,mena f13, 565, 579, 1071, 1424, pc 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 18:31 ivdo,ntej ou=n oi` su,ndouloi auvtou/ ta. geno,mena 

evluph,qhsan sfo,dra kai. evlqo,ntej diesa,fhsan tw/| kuri,w| eàutw/n 

pa,nta ta. geno,menaÅ first: gino,mena D, L, 892, pc 

second: safe! 

NA 27 Matthew 28:11 … avph,ggeilan toi/j avrciereu/sin a[panta ta. geno,menaÅ 

safe! 

NA 27 Luke 9:7 :Hkousen de. ~Hrw,|dhj o` tetraa,rchj ta. gino,mena pa,nta 

geno,mena A, X, Y, f1, f13, 2, 579, al 

NA 27 Luke 24:18 … kai. ouvk e;gnwj ta. geno,mena … 

gino,mena 565 

Difficult to judge on internal grounds. Externally the support for gino,mena is 

not coherent. 


TVU 394 





kai. ei;pwsin tw/| law/|\ hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n( kai. e;stai h` evsca,th 

pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thjÅ 

omit 01, B, arm, geo pt , WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Tis, Bal 

txt A, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, Latt, Sy, Co, WH mg 

B: no umlaut 

Check Mt 8:21 and extended discussion there. 


add brackets

TVU 395 


tri,thj h`me,raj( mh,pote evlqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kle,ywsin 

auvto.n kai. ei;pwsin tw/| law/|\ hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n( kai. e;stai h` 

evsca,th pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thjÅ 

BYZ Matthew 27:64 ke,leuson ou=n avsfalisqh/nai to.n ta,fon e[wj th/j 

tri,thj h`me,raj mh,pote evlqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ nukto.j kle,ywsin 

auvto.n kai. ei;pwsin tw/| law/| VHge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n kai. e;stai h` 

evsca,th pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thj 

Byz C C3 , L, G, 565, 700, 892, 1241, Sy-S, Sy-P, Maj-part 

txt 01, A, B, C*, D, K, W, Y, D, Q, f1, f13, 22, 33, 579, 1424, Maj-part, 

Latt, Co(+ mae-2), goth 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 28:13 ei;pate o[ti oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ nukto.j evlqo,ntej 

e;kleyan auvto.n h`mw/n koimwme,nwnÅ 

A harmonization to 28:13. 


TVU 396 

NA 27 Matthew 27:66 oi` de. poreuqe,ntej hvsfali,santo to.n ta,fon 

sfragi,santej to.n li,qon meta. th/j koustwdi,ajÅ 

NA 27 Matthew 28:1 VOye. de. sabba,twn( th/| evpifwskou,sh| eivj mi,an 

sabba,twn h=lqen Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. kai. h` a;llh Mari,a qewrh/sai 

to.n ta,fonÅ 

A question of punctuation: 

Is it 

... meta. th/j koustwdi,aj ovye. de. sabba,twnÅ Th/| evpifwskou,sh| ... 

or: 

... meta. th/j koustwdi,ajÅ VOye. de. sabba,twn( th/| evpifwskou,sh| ... 

So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone on 

the eve of the Sabbath. As the first day of the week was dawning, ... 

or: 

So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone. 

On the eve of the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, ... 

Linder (TSK 35, 1862) notes that in later Greek VOye. de. sabba,twn means 

"after the Sabbath" with VOye. = "after, after the expiration of". So also BDAG. 

This makes better sense here than "on the eve" or "late on the Sabbath".

TVU 397 


NA 27 Matthew 28:1 VOye. de. sabba,twn( th/| evpifwskou,sh| eivj mi,an 

sabba,twn h=lqen Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. kai. h` a;llh Mari,a qewrh/sai 

to.n ta,fonÅ 

BYZ Matthew 28:1 VOye. de. sabba,twn( th/| evpifwskou,sh| eivj mi,an 

sabba,twn( h=lqen Mari,a h` Magdalhnh,( kai. h` a;llh Mari,a( qewrh/sai 

to.n ta,fonÅ 

Byz A, B, D, W, 1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, sa, bo, WH, Bois, Trg 

txt 01, C, L, D, Q, 1582, L844, L2211, pc, mae, WH mg , NA 25 , Weiss 

L, D, Q read also: kai. h` a;llh Maria.m 

B: no umlaut 

Matthew 13:55 Maria.m 

Matthew 27:56-1 Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. 

Matthew 27:56-2 Mari,a h` tou/ VIakw,bou 

Matthew 27:61-1 Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. 

Matthew 27:61-2 kai. h` a;llh Mari,a 

Matthew 28:1-1 Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. 

Matthew 28:1-2 kai. h` a;llh Mari,a 

Mark 15:40-1 Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. 

Mark 15:40-2 Mari,a h` VIakw,bou tou/ mikrou/ 


Mark 15:47-2 Mari,a h` VIwsh/toj 


Mark 16:1-2 Mari,a h` Îtou/Ð VIakw,bou 

Luke 1:27 Maria,m 


Luke 1:34 Maria.m 








Luke 2:34 Maria.m

Luke 8:2 Mari,a h` kaloume,nh Magdalhnh, 

Luke 10:39 avdelfh. kaloume,nh Maria,m 

Luke 10:42 Maria.m (Ma,rqan) 

Luke 24:10-1 h` Magdalhnh. Mari,a 

Luke 24:10-2 Mari,a h` VIakw,bou 

John 11:2 Maria.m h` avlei,yasa to.n ku,rion 

John 11:19 Maria.m (Ma,rqan) 







John 19:25-1 Mari,a h` tou/ Klwpa/ 

John 19:25-2 Mari,a h` Magdalhnh, 

John 20:1 Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. 

John 20:11 Mari,a (h` Magdalhnh.) 

John 20:16 Maria,m (h` Magdalhnh.) 

John 20:18 Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. 

Of these is "Mary Magdalene" (NA txt given first): 

Matthew 27:56-1 Mari,a 01, A, B, D, W, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj 

Maria.m C, L, D, Q, f1, pc, sa mss 

Maria.m 2 C, D, Q 

Matthew 27:61-1 Maria.m 01, B, C, L, D, Q, f1, L844, pc, mae, bo ms 

Mari,a A, D, W, f13, 33, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj 

Maria.m 2 D, 700 

Matthew 28:1-1 Maria.m 01, C, L, D, Q, 1582, L844, L2211, pc, mae 

Mari,a A, B, D, W, 1, 33, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj 

Maria.m 2 L, D, Q 

Mark 15:40-1 Mari,a 01, A, D, L, D, Y, f13, 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 

1424, Maj 

Maria.m B, C, W, Q, 0184, f1, Sy-H 

Mark 15:47-1 Mari,a 01, A, B, C, D, L, W, D, f13, 28, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 

1424, Maj 

Maria.m Q, f1, 33, Sy-H

Mark 16:1-1 Mari,a 01, A, B, C, D, L, W, D, f13, 28, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 

1424, Maj 

Maria.m Q, f1, 33 (not in NA and SQE!) 

Luke 8:2 Mari,a 01, B, D, W, Q, f13, 1424, Maj 

Maria.m A, L, P, Y, f1, 33, 157, 579, 700, pc (not in NA and SQE!) 

Luke 24:10-1 Mari,a P75, A, B, D, L, W, Q, Y, f13, 33, 157, 700, 1071, 

1424, Maj 

Maria.m 01, f1, 579 (not in NA but in SQE!) 

John 19:25-2 Mari,a A, B, D sup , W, Q, f13, 579, Maj 

Maria.m 01, L, Y, f1, 33, 565, L844, pc 

John 20:1 Mari,a B, D sup , Q, Y, f13, Maj 

Maria.m 01, A, L, W, f1, 33, 565, 579, L844, pc 

John 20:11 Mari,a P66*, A, B, D sup , L, W, Q, f13, 579, Maj 

Maria.m P66 C , 01, Y, 050, f1, 33, 565, L844, L2211, pc 

John 20:16 Maria,m 01, B, L, N, W, P, 050, f1, 33, 565, L844, L2211, pc 

Mari,a A, D, K, Q, Y, 0250, f13, Maj 

John 20:18 Maria.m P66, 01, B, L, f1, 33, 565, L844, pc 

Mari,a A, D, W, Q, Y, 0250, f13, Maj 

There is an interesting string of witnesses supporting Maria.m in those 3 cases 

in Mt: C, L, D, Q, f1. In the second instance 01, B join these and in the third 

instance it is 01 alone. 

Similar strings can be found for the other books. The Byzantine text always has 

Mari,a, f1 has always Maria.m. 

No clear-cut rules can be found. Probably in part accidental or to avoid a hiatus. 

Difficult! 


TVU 398 

NA 27 Matthew 28:2 kai. ivdou. seismo.j evge,neto me,gaj\ a;ggeloj ga.r kuri,ou 

kataba.j evx ouvranou/ kai. proselqw.n avpeku,lisen to.n li,qon 

kai. evka,qhto evpa,nw auvtou/Å 

BYZ Matthew 28:2 kai. ivdou. seismo.j evge,neto me,gaj\ a;ggeloj ga.r kuri,ou 

kataba.j evx ouvranou/ proselqw.n avpeku,lisen to.n li,qon avpo. th/j qu,raj( 

kai. evka,qhto evpa,nw auvtou/ 

Byz divided: 

avpo. th/j qu,raj A, C, K, W, D, f13-part, 579, 1424, 

Maj-part, f, h, q, Sy-P 

avpo. th/j qu,raj tou/ mnhmei,ou L, G, Q, f1, 652, f13-part, 22, 33, 157, 565, 

1241, Maj-part, 

Sy-H, Sy-Pal, arab MS , mae-1+2, bo, Eus 

txt 01, B, D, 700, 892, pc, Lat, Sy-S, sa 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:60 kai. proskuli,saj li,qon me,gan th/| qu,ra| tou/ mnhmei,ou 

avph/lqenÅ 

NA 27 Mark 15:46 kai. proseku,lisen li,qon evpi. th.n qu,ran tou/ mnhmei,ouÅ 

NA 27 Mark 16:3 ti,j avpokuli,sei h`mi/n to.n li,qon evk th/j qu,raj tou/ mnhmei,ouÈ 

G. Peter 12, 53 ti,j de. apoku,lisei h`mi/n kai. to.n li,qon to.n te,qenta 

evpi. th/j qu,raj tou/ mnhmei,ou\ 

There is no reason for an omission. Probably an addition from immediate context 

(27:60) and common knowledge. 




TVU 399 

NA 27 Matthew 28:6 ouvk e;stin w-de( hvge,rqh ga.r kaqw.j ei=pen\ deu/te i;dete 

to.n to,pon o[pou e;keito Å 

BYZ Matthew 28:6 ouvk e;stin w-de hvge,rqh ga.r kaqw.j ei=pen\ deu/te i;dete 

to.n to,pon o[pou e;keito o` Ku,riojÅ 

Byz A, C, D, L, W, D, 0148, f1, 652, f13, 700, 892 C , Maj, 

Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, [Trg] 

txt 01, B, Q, 33, 892*, pc, e, Sy-S, Co(+ mae-2) 

to. sw/ma tou/ kuri,ou 1424, pc 

o` VIhsouj F 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Luke 24:3 eivselqou/sai de. ouvc eu-ron to. sw/ma tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/Å 

There is no reason for an omission. 


TVU 400 


NA 27 Matthew 28:7 kai. tacu. poreuqei/sai ei;pate toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ o[ti 

hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n( 

omit: D, 565, pc, Lat(a, b, d, e, ff 1 , g 1 , h, l, r 1 , vg), Sy-S, arm, Or 

aur, c, f, ff 2 , q, vg mss have the words 

Lacuna: Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 

Western non-interpolation? 

Parallels: 

NA 27 Matthew 14:2 kai. ei=pen toi/j paisi.n auvtou/\ ou-to,j evstin VIwa,nnhj o` 

baptisth,j\ auvto.j hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n 



kai. ei;pwsin tw/| law/|\ hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n( 

NA 27 Matthew 28:6 ouvk e;stin w-de( hvge,rqh ga.r kaqw.j ei=pen\ 

The omission could be a harmonization to the previous verse 6. 

The addition could be a harmonization to immediate context (27:64). 


TVU 401 


NA 27 Matthew 28:7 kai. tacu. poreuqei/sai ei;pate toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ 

o[ti hvge,rqh avpo. tw/n nekrw/n( kai. ivdou. proa,gei u`ma/j eivj th.n 

Galilai,an( evkei/ auvto.n o;yesqe\ ivdou. ei=pon u`mi/nÅ 

ei=pen cj. (Hort) WH mg 

kaqw.j ei=pen u`mi/n 126, 472 (from Mk) 

"sicut dixit vobis" f, vg mss 

WH have this reading labeled as "† ... †", indicating a "primitive error". 

The reading was listed in NA 25 , but has been omitted in NA 26,27 . 

B: no umlaut 


5 And the messenger answering said to the women, "Do not be afraid, I know that you are 

looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place 

where the Lord was lying; 7 and having gone quickly, say you to his disciples, that he rose from 

the dead; and lo, he does go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you." 

Compare: 

NA 27 Mark 16:7 avlla. u`pa,gete ei;pate toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ kai. tw/| 

Pe,trw| o[ti proa,gei u`ma/j eivj th.n Galilai,an\ evkei/ auvto.n o;yesqe( 

kaqw.j ei=pen u`mi/nÅ 

It is the messenger/angel who is speaking. Thus it makes good sense to have "lo, 

he told you" here. 

On the other hand "lo, I told you" also makes good sense as an intensifying 

statement. 

This conjecture appears to me to be the most probable in the Gospels. 

Hort writes: "Comparison with Mk 16:7 gives much probability to the suggestion 

of Maldonat [Johannes Maldonatus, 1533-1583] and others that ei=pon is a 

primitive corruption of ei=pen. The essential identity of the two records in this 

place renders it improbable that the corresponding clauses would hide total 

difference of sense under similarity of language; while ivdou. might easily mislead 

a scribe. As recalling sharply an earlier prediction or command, ivdou. ei=pen is 

the more forcible though less objective reading." 


TVU 402 



kai. ivdou. VIhsou/j u`ph,nthsen auvtai/j le,gwn\ cai,reteÅ ai` de. 

proselqou/sai evkra,thsan auvtou/ tou.j po,daj kai. proseku,nhsan auvtw/|Å 

BYZ Matthew 28:9 w`j de. evporeu,onto avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ 

kai. ivdou. VIhsou/j avph,nthsen auvtai/j le,gwn Cai,rete ai` de. 

proselqou/sai evkra,thsan auvtou/( tou.j po,daj kai. proseku,nhsan auvtw/| 

T&T #64 

Byz A, C, L, D, S, F, 0148, f1, f13-part, (1424), Maj 1300 , f, q, Sy-H, Weiss 

avpercome,non de. auvtw/n 788 

w`j de. e;dramon avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ 1424, pc 11 

txt 01, B, D, W, Q, 13, 69, 788(=f13 b ), 33, 279, 700, 892, 1292, 2680, al 180 , 

Lat, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2), Or, Eus 

From here to end Sy-S (and Sy-C) are not extant. 

B: no umlaut (but one line above: avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j) 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 28:8 Kai. avpelqou/sai tacu. avpo. tou/ mnhmei,ou meta. fo,bou 

kai. cara/j mega,lhj e;dramon avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/Å 

It is quite probable that the term felt out due to h.t. 

On the other hand it could have been added from the previous verse. The kai. 

before the ivdou. is a bit strange though: 

"... and ran to tell his disciples. When they walked to tell his disciples, and suddenly, ..." 

This has been felt by some scribes, because 41 minuscules omit the kai.. 

On the other hand kai. ivdou. is idiomatic for "Look! See! Listen!" 

Weiss has the words and writes (Textkritik, p. 184): "Surely the emendators did 

not insert such a tautological and unnecessary addition." He believes that h.t. 

lead to the omission. But Weiss also notes the non-Matthean w`j temporalis. 

It is noteworthy that the words are also in the Arabic Diatessaron, where they 

make sense, because Mt 28:8 is separated from Mt 28:9 by two large 

paragraphs. 

Rating: 1? or – (NA probably wrong or indecisive)

TVU 403 



NA 27 Matthew 28:14 kai. eva.n avkousqh/| tou/to evpi. tou/ h`gemo,noj( h`mei/j 

pei,somen Îauvto.nÐ kai. u`ma/j avmeri,mnouj poih,somenÅ 

omit 01, B, Q, 33, L844, L2211, e, WH, NA 25 , Weiss, Gre, Tis, Bal 

txt A, C, D, L, W, 0148, 0234, f1, f13, 892, Maj, Lat, Sy, [Trg] 

B: no umlaut 

No parallel. 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 27:20 Oi` de. avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi e;peisan tou.j 

o;clouj 

NA 27 Acts 13:43 oi[tinej proslalou/ntej auvtoi/j e;peiqon auvtou.j 

prosme,nein th/| ca,riti tou/ qeou/Å 

NA 27 Acts 18:4 diele,geto de. evn th/| sunagwgh/| kata. pa/n sa,bbaton 

e;peiqe,n te VIoudai,ouj kai. {EllhnajÅ 

NA 27 1 John 3:19 ÎKai.Ð evn tou,tw| gnwso,meqa o[ti evk th/j avlhqei,aj evsme,n( 

kai. e;mprosqen auvtou/ pei,somen th.n kardi,an h`mw/n( 

The addition of the pronoun is only natural. Possibly idiomatic. 

The meaning is not entirely clear. Normally "we will persuade (him)", but it could 

also mean "we will bribe (him)" (suggested in BDAG). Compare: 

LXX 2 Maccabees 10:20 oi` de. peri. to.n Simwna filargurh,santej u`po, 

tinwn tw/n evn toi/j pu,rgoij evpei,sqhsan avrguri,w| e`pta,kij de. muri,aj 

dracma.j labo,ntej ei;asa,n tinaj diarruh/nai 

"But those with Simon, who were money-hungry, were bribed by some of those who were in the 

towers, and on receiving seventy thousand drachmas let some of them slip away." 

Josephus: 

Ant 14:281 Ma,licoj de. dei,saj to,te ma,lista to.n VAnti,patron evkpodw.n 

evpoiei/to kai. pei,saj avrguri,w| to.n ~Urkanou/ oivnoco,on parV w-| 

e`ka,teroi ei`stiw/nto farma,kw| ktei,nei to.n a;ndra 

"but as Malichus was most afraid of Antipater, he killed him; and by the offer of money, persuaded the 

butler of Hyrcanus, with whom they were both to feast, to kill him by poison." 

Ant 14:490 tau/ta fobou,menoj polloi/j crh,masi pei,qei to.n VAntw,nion 

avnelei/n VAnti,gonon 

"Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to 

persuade him to have Antigonus slain" 


TVU 404 


NA 27 Matthew 28:15 oi` de. labo,ntej ta. avrgu,ria evpoi,hsan 

w`j evdida,cqhsanÅ kai. diefhmi,sqh o` lo,goj ou-toj para. VIoudai,oij me,cri 

th/j sh,meron Îh`me,rajÐÅ 

omit 01*, B*, W, 0234, pc, WH, NA 25 , Weiss 

txt 01 C1 , A, B C2 , D, L, Q, 0148, f1, f13, 33, 892, Maj, WH mg 

Lacuna: C 

B: p. 1277 A 23: ta is written above the line in small uncial letters. 

B: no umlaut 

Context: 

NA 27 Matthew 28:12 kai. sunacqe,ntej meta. tw/n presbute,rwn sumbou,lio,n 

te labo,ntej avrgu,ria i`kana. e;dwkan toi/j stratiw,taij 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 25:27 e;dei se ou=n balei/n ta. avrgu,ria, mou toi/j 

trapezi,taij( kai. evlqw.n evgw. evkomisa,mhn a'n to. evmo.n su.n to,kw|Å 

NA 27 Matthew 27:5 kai. rì,yaj ta. avrgu,ria eivj to.n nao.n avnecw,rhsen( 

NA 27 Matthew 27:6 Oi` de. avrcierei/j labo,ntej ta. avrgu,ria ei=pan\ 

NA 27 Matthew 28:12 kai. sunacqe,ntej meta. tw/n presbute,rwn sumbou,lio,n 

te labo,ntej avrgu,ria i`kana. e;dwkan toi/j stratiw,taij 

It is possible that the article has been omitted to avoid a hiatus. It should be 

noted though that the other occurrences in Mt are safe. 

Probably an error from context 28:12. 

Weiss (Comm. Mt) notes that the article probably refers back to verse 12, but 

that this is not intended here, it is only a general statement that for money they 

accepted the highpriest's demand. 


TVU 405 


NA 27 Matthew 28:17 kai. ivdo,ntej auvto.n proseku,nhsan ( oi` de. 

evdi,stasanÅ 

BYZ Matthew 28:17 kai. ivdo,ntej auvto.n proseku,nhsan auvtw/|\ oi` de. 

evdi,stasan 

Byz A, W, D, Q, 0148, f1, f13, 22, 579, 700, 892, Maj, q, Gre 

auvto,n G, 652, 28, 157, 1241, al 

auvtou/ 346 

auvtw/| or auvto,n Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal mss , Co, arm, geo 

txt 01, B, D, 33, Lat, Sy-Pal ms , Eus? 

Lacuna: C, Sy-S, Sy-C 

B: no umlaut 


NA 27 Matthew 28:9 kai. ivdou. VIhsou/j u`ph,nthsen auvtai/j le,gwn\ cai,reteÅ 

ai` de. proselqou/sai evkra,thsan auvtou/ tou.j po,daj kai. proseku,nhsan 

auvtw/|Å 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Matthew 2:11 kai. evlqo,ntej eivj th.n oivki,an ei=don to. paidi,on meta. 

Mari,aj th/j mhtro.j auvtou/( kai. peso,ntej proseku,nhsan auvtw/| 

NA 27 Matthew 14:33 oi` de. evn tw/| ploi,w| proseku,nhsan auvtw/| le,gontej\ 

avlhqw/j qeou/ uiò.j ei=Å 

NA 27 John 4:20 oi` pate,rej h`mw/n evn tw/| o;rei tou,tw| proseku,nhsan\ 

If originally present there would have been no reason for an omission. The 

addition of a personal pronoun is the normal usage in relation to Jesus. Without 

pronoun proskune,w is used with respect to God. Since Jesus is now the risen 

Savior and Lord, the usage without the pronoun might be appropriate. 

Note the conjecture by A. Pallis (Notes, 1932): ouvde. evdi,stasan. 


TVU 406 

NA 27 Matthew 28:19 poreuqe,ntej ou=n maqhteu,sate pa,nta ta. e;qnh( 

bapti,zontej auvtou.j eivj to. o;noma tou/ patro.j kai. tou/ uiòu/ kai. tou/ 

a`gi,ou pneu,matoj( 

BYZ Matthew 28:19 Poreuqe,ntej maqhteu,sate pa,nta ta. e;qnh( 

bapti,zontej auvtou.j eivj to. o;noma tou/ Patro.j kai. tou/ Uiòu/ kai. tou/ 

~Agi,ou Pneu,matoj\ 

Byz 01, A, K, f13, 2, 579, 700, 1424, Maj, sa ms , bo pt , Ir Lat 

txt B, W, D, Q, P, f1, 13, 346, 543, 33, 565, 892, 1071, 1241, al, L844, L2211, 

Lat("ergo" c, e, f, ff 1 , ff 2 , g 1 , l, q, vg), Sy, sa, mae, bo pt , arm, TR 

nun D, it("nunc" a, aur, b, d, h, n) 

0148: NA has 0148 as "vid" for the Byz reading. It reads: 

isñ·elalhsena[utois 

legwn · edo[qh 

moipasae[xousia 

enouñnwñ[kaiepighs 

poreuq[entesounma 

qhte[usatepan 

tAt[aeqnh 

here the papyrus breaks off. 

It is not at all clear if 0148 read ou=n or not. The word is within a lacuna. From 

space considerations it is even slightly more probable that it omitted it. Compare 

S Porter ("NT Papyri and Parchments", Vienna, 2008). 

Lacuna: C, L 

B: no umlaut 

Compare: 

NA 27 Matthew 5:19 o]j eva.n ou=n lu,sh| mi,an tw/n evntolw/n tou,twn 

omit: L, 2 

NA 27 Matthew 6:2 {Otan ou=n poih/|j evlehmosu,nhn 

omit: 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 6:22 eva.n ou=n h=| o` ovfqalmo,j sou a`plou/j( 

omit: 01, pc 

NA 27 Matthew 7:12 Pa,nta ou=n o[sa eva.n qe,lhte 

omit: 01*, L, 983, 1424, pc

NA 27 Matthew 7:24 Pa/j ou=n o[stij avkou,ei mou 

omit: K 

NA 27 Matthew 12:12 po,sw| ou=n diafe,rei a;nqrwpoj proba,touÅ 

omit: 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 13:28 qe,leij ou=n avpelqo,ntej sulle,xwmen auvta,È 

omit: D, 579 

NA 27 Matthew 17:10 ti, ou=n oi` grammatei/j le,gousin 

omit: 700 

NA 27 Matthew 18:26 pesw.n ou=n o` dou/loj proseku,nei auvtw/| 

de. D 

NA 27 Matthew 18:31 ivdo,ntej ou=n oi` su,ndouloi 

BYZ Matthew 18:31 ivdo,ntej de. oi` su,ndouloi 

ou=n 01* , C2 , B, D, 33, pc 

de 01 C1 , L, W, Q, f1, f13, 892, Maj 

NA 27 Matthew 21:25 dia. ti, ou=n ouvk evpisteu,sate auvtw/|È 

omit: D, H, L, 28, 700, 892, 1071, al 

NA 27 Matthew 22:9 poreu,esqe ou=n evpi. ta.j diexo,douj tw/n o`dw/n 

omit: D, K, L, W, Y, Q, P, W, 157, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 22:21 avpo,dote ou=n ta. Kai,saroj Kai,sari 

omit: D, 157, 700* 

NA 27 Matthew 23:3 pa,nta ou=n o[sa eva.n ei;pwsin u`mi/n 

omit: 579 

NA 27 Matthew 24:15 {Otan ou=n i;dhte to. bde,lugma 

de. 01 C , L, 157 

NA 27 Matthew 24:26 eva.n ou=n ei;pwsin u`mi/n\ 

omit: 01* 

NA 27 Matthew 24:42 Grhgorei/te ou=n( 

omit: 565, 1424 

NA 27 Matthew 27:17 sunhgme,nwn ou=n auvtw/n ei=pen auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj\ 

de. D, Q, f13 

ou=n is a typical John word (194 instances), but of the Synoptics, Mt has most of 

it (56; Mk+Lk: 39). 

The versional evidence is not very reliable for such a conjunction. 

This is one of the few cases where the Byzantine text has the shorter reading. 

And this is the only instance in which the Byzantine text omits ou=n. The 

Majority text reads once de. instead of ou=n in 18:31.

As one can see from the evidence, 01, D, L and 1424 are the most unreliable 

witnesses regarding ou=n in Mt: 

D, L, 1424 6 times 

01 4 times 

157, 579, 700 3 times 

It is only 01 of the better witnesses which support the omission here and 01 

seems to be not very reliable in this instance. At least this requires very careful 

investigation. 

Erasmus (TR) probably followed minuscule 1 here. 


TVU 408 



NA 27 Matthew 28:19 poreuqe,ntej ou=n maqhteu,sate pa,nta ta. e;qnh( 

bapti,zontej auvtou.j eivj to. o;noma tou/ patro.j kai. tou/ uiòu/ kai. tou/ 

a`gi,ou pneu,matoj( 

evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou Eusebius (17 times), before Nicea (325 CE) 

Variant noted in NA 25 , but not in NA 26,27 

B: no umlaut 

Compare Didache: 

7.1. peri. de. tou/ bapti,smatoj( o[utw bapti,sate( tau/ta pa,nta 

proei/pontej( bapti,sate eivj to. o;noma tou/ patro.j kai. tou/ uiòu/ kai. 

tou/ a`gi,ou pneu,matoj evn u[dati zw/ntiÅ 

Compare also: 

NA 27 Acts 2:38 Pe,troj de. pro.j auvtou,j\ metanoh,sate( Îfhsi,n(Ð kai. 

baptisqh,tw e[kastoj u`mw/n evpi. tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ Cristou/ eivj a;fesin 

tw/n a`martiw/n u`mw/n 

NA 27 Acts 8:16 ouvde,pw ga.r h=n evpV ouvdeni. auvtw/n evpipeptwko,j( mo,non de. 

bebaptisme,noi u`ph/rcon eivj to. o;noma tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/Å 

NA 27 Acts 10:48 prose,taxen de. auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ Cristou/ 

baptisqh/naiÅ 

NA 27 Acts 19:5 avkou,santej de. evbapti,sqhsan eivj to. o;noma tou/ kuri,ou 

VIhsou/( 

NA 27 Romans 6:3 h' avgnoei/te o[ti( o[soi evbapti,sqhmen eivj Cristo.n 

VIhsou/n( 

Eusebius uses 29 times a form of Mt 28:19 and cites it in three different forms: 

Form 1: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations" (7 times) 

Form 2: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name" (17 times) 

Form 3: The traditional form (5 times)

Examples: (complete list with refs. in Conybeare) 

"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a 

view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went 

unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had 

said to them, 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.' " 

H.E. book 3, ch. 5 

"Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over 

death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to 

them, 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.' " 

"The Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine" ch. 16:8 

"Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.' 'But how,' the disciples might 

reasonably have answered the Master, 'can we do it?' … But while the disciples 

of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved 

their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph 'In 

My Name.' For he did not bid them simply and indefinitely 'make disciples of all 

nations,' but with the necessary addition 'In My Name.' 

"The Proof of the Gospel", similar in "The Theophania" 

FORM ONE FORM TWO FORM THREE 

The Proof of the Gospel 3 times 5 times - 

Commentary in Psalms 2 times 4 times - 

The Theophania 1 time 4 times 1 time 

Commentary in Isaiah - 2 times - 

The History of the Church - 1 time - 

In Praise of Constantine - 1 time - 

The Theology of the Church 1 time - 1 time 

The Letter to Caesarea - - 1 time 

Contra Marcellum - - 2 times 

SUM 7 17 5 

Eusebius apparently used this formula instead of the "trinitarian" one before 

the council of Nicea, which fixed the "trinity". Since Eusebius was a known 

skeptic of trinitarian thoughts it is the question if the formula was changed by 

him (or a predecessor) or if his version is the correct one and all existing copies 

of Mt are corrupt at this position. 

The quotes in the long, third form are all of disputed origin in Eusebius, with 

them all believed to have been composed after the trinitarian debates at the 

council of Nicea, or even possibly by another author. 

Note that the Eusebian form does not contain the word bapti,zw, so it is not a 

reference to baptism at all.

An allusion in Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 39): ginwskei eti kaq~ hmeran 

tinaj maqhteumenouj eij to onoma tou Cristou autou 

Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so 

He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] 

are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also 

receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. 

Ephrem in his Diatessaron commentary cites the canonical, long form. The words 

are present in the Armenian translation, the Syriac has a lacuna. They are also in 

the Arabic translation of the Diatessaron (Ciasca). 

W. Petersen on TC list (Jan. 2003): 

In the absence of any textual evidence, but in view of the strong anachronistic character of 

Matt 28:19 - anachronistic when compared with the rest of the NT - it seems to me one can 

comfortably state that (1) the words were never spoken by Jesus; (2) the *logion* was unknown 

as late as the composition of Acts (in the 80s?); (3) one cannot determine whether it was - or 

was not - part of the earliest version of Matthew (80s? 90s?). 

Canon Armitage Robinson writes (Art. "Baptism" in Encyclopedia Biblica): 

"Matthew does not here report the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but transfers to 

him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist's own time and 

locality." 

This sounds not unreasonable, but does not help in regard to what Matthew 

originally wrote. 

Note these articles: 

• F.C. Conybeare "The Eusebian form of the text Mt 28:19", ZNW 2 (1901) 

275-288 [has a full list of all quotes, most in Greek] 

• Eduard Riggenbach "Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl : Matth. 28,19 nach seiner 

ursprünglichen Textgestalt und seiner Authentie untersucht", Gütersloh, 

1903, 103 pages 

• Hans Kosmala "The Conclusion of Matthew", Annual of the Swedish 

Theological Institute, 4 (1965), 132-147 

• David Flusser "The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian 

Source", ibid. , 5 (1966-7), 110-119 

• George Howard "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew", HTR 81 (1988) 

117-20 [notes the form of the Even Bohan by Shem-Tob: "and teach them to 

carry out all things which I have commanded you forever." This form 

additionally omits ta. e;qnh.] 

• Compare also: R.D. Hughes http://godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

NA25 - www-user

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?